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.

	Rave Unassessed (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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Though it's not a glaring flaw, the toxic/dangerous effects section has a very optimistic and supportive tone to it. Although it is only using what I'll assume are factual figures, it presents them in a skewed way.

I agree, for an illegal drug it makes it look kinda like it was no big dealAvatar of Nothing 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Avatar of nothing[reply]

Legal status has absolutely no bearing on potential harm, and is invariably completely arbitrary. e.g. see [1] Nick Cooper 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, anyways, it wouldn't be the first time the US Govt Was behind the times Avatar of Nothing 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing[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 don't understand. What's the point of renaming if people (wiki readers) are typing MDMA or Ecstasy and are directed to the correct page which starts with the name of the drug? Type in Tylenol (like more American readers do) and they are promptly redirected to the name of the drug (parecetamol, and the page explains the other name acetominophen). So why is the current name a problem? It takes people to where they want to go. The article says right in the first sentence that 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine is also known as MDMA and Ecstasy. No problem here. I say keep the way it is. Gaviidae 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep the title the same but instead make it a redirect? if someone (like me for a health project) looks up "ecstacy" it takes a longer time to get there, and impedes the wiki's use. Just redirect "ecstasy" to this page.Avatar of Nothing 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing[reply]

The "rules" for drug articles at Wikipedia seem to be:

• Use a non-ambiguous chemical name if it is not too complicated (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is not unique (there is also the 2,3-isomer), 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is a borderline case regarding the length)
• Use the abbreviation if it is a unique abbreviation (so far, MDMA is unique)
• Do not use slang names (like Ecstasy)

Therefore, I tend to move it to MDMA. Cacycle 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, ok, That will work I suppose. Avatar of Nothing 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing[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 [2], 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)

I'm gay, and I don't know many other gay people who use MDMA (and of those who do, none of them are particularly active in the gay 2scene"). I do, however, know a GREAT many straight people who use MDMA - I'd class it as a hippy drug (much like cannabis) not a gay drug.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:23, 9 April 2007 (talk • contribs) Tavdy79 (UTC)

Well, you have only presented stereotypes in defense of your argument, and nothing that has to do with actual homosexuality. I don't think stereotypes should be posted in this article. 4.234.51.41 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Pretty good is in the eyes of the beholder. The idea that this represents a neutral point of view is, interesting to say the least. Two examples of sophomoric behavior- First, the Parkinson's section. Why all the ad hominem about Ricaurte? Is this relevant to an encyclopedic entry? Second, the descriptions of scientific findings. All qualified with caveats that come from an agenda, not a neutral point of view. This is the strategy employed by the tobacco industry and the Bush administration on climate change. Selective critique of the scientific literature without any attempt at legitimate synthesis of results to determine what is likely true. A neutral point of view reports the evidence for and against with citation. A biased point of view reports evidence and then says "but some people don't believe it". again, bush on climate change. Blackrose10 16:51, 9 February 2007 (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.

Really? and how do you know this? There is actually a lot of reason to believe that MDMA specifically interferes with normal regulation of salt balance. And there is not just one case report, there are many in which hyponatremia is an associated factor of medical emergency. Try using PubMed once in awhile, it is very simple to search. What is unknown is if water chugging is required to produce a dangerous hyponatremia or if individual sensitivity is involved but the evidence (i.e., lots of uninformed water chugging, relatively few hyponatremic deaths) leans toward individual sensitivity. So hyponatremia may indeed be easy to avoid, but only if you have the right genetic endowment.Blackrose10 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I never heard it affected skeletal muscle, but rather the hypothalamus, which regulates body tempurature and thirst. I haven't found that seratonins affect it, but steroids do. While hyperthermia is mentioned briefly in the article, I'd like to find the specifics and then list them near the beginning with the other side effects. Gaviidae 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heres an article which describes Mdma's affect on mdma and on the UCP3 proteins largely found in skeletal muscle. “Uncoupling the agony from ecstasy” by Mills et al in Nature (2003), 426: 403-404.Genomaniac 20:40, 1 March 2007 (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]

If that can be sourced and verified, it would be a very interesting thing to see a treatment of in the article proper. However, pending that, I've commented out the unverified, unsourced claims from the infobox, as well as the End of Life entry. Neither is explained in the article, but both should explained and sourced before removing the comments. Note that the Anxiety entry is also a little vague. Was it used as a normal anti-anxiety medication, or is that a duplicate reference to PTSD treatment? Finally, should Parkinsons also be listed in the "Other putative uses" section? MrZaius^talk 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people claim that MDMA creates a heightened sexual experience, while other say it actually makes sex near impossible because of factors such as erectile dysfunction while on it. Are there any studies or research that have any information towards proving one, both, or none to be true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.20.224.240 (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Most of the literature and a wide sample of annecdotal evidence suggests that - inevitably - it's complicated. Some men experience erectile dysfunction, other do not, while of the latter, some can acheive ejaculation and some can't. However, it seems that the latter - and even not getting an erection in the first place - is not necessarily a "problem," since the other influence of MDMA is to put the user in a state of mind that the simple aim penetration and ejaculation seems far less important. Saunders (various, but certainly in Ecstasy Reconsidered) reports something along the lines of sex that is more prolonged and tender - sensual, rather than sexual. Nick Cooper 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research, but I can tell you having a girl chewing on your neck feels absolutely amazing while rolling. As said above, it's complicated, some people have sexual disfunctions while on it and others don't, but ecstasy most certainly does increase tactile(touch) sensations and sexual activity most definitely is a tactile sensation. So it stands to reason that of course ecstasy would increase sexual pleasure, erectile disfunction can be a side effect yes(and some combine it with viagra for this very reason), but also as said there are other things you can do that are sexual while not needing to involve penetration and not everyone has these side effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.109.202 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I feel that there are not enough accurate names in this article. I am currently enrolled in a facility/rehab and all we are allowed to access is Wikipedia. I (and others here) feel that there should be more names of MDMA listed, and of course, ones that are commonly used. I wish I had another website to base this information off of but I can not access one. On the other hand, I don’t necessarily think that a website should be needed here. There are numerous people here who are very familiar with this drug including myself. I am hoping that you all can understand where I am coming from here. I don’t mean to add 1000 names either, only 4 or so. I don’t exactly know where to place them in the article but that shouldn’t be too hard. Here is what I had in mind (in addition to what is already mentioned):

• Rolls
• Skates
• ADAMS
• Love Bugs

Please take this into consideration.

Thanks, PulsHrd 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas??

PulsHrd 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every street drug can have inummerable names, with new ones sprouting like mushrooms after the rain every year. There are 4 names and spellings in the article now. If there are one or two more that are very popular in a large geographic area, add them into the first sentence. Be aware that another problem with street names is that they can overlap-- X, jellies, and happy candy are example names that people throw at many unrelated recreational drugs, so they don't necessarily add information to readers. Gaviidae 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that Rolls should definately be added to the list. I think this is one of the most common nicknames, and it's only applied to X as far as I've heard. I tried adding it to the first sentence, but someone deleted it stating that they wanted to keep nicknames to derivates of Ecstacy, which doesn't make much sense to me sense Ecstacy itself is just a nickname for Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and we aren't keeping nicknames to derivates of that. War wizard90 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ecstasy" is pretty much universal - certainly far better known that the chemical name - and it's natural to mention the direct derivatives of it in the introduction. The problem - as has manifested itself on this page in the past - is that once people start adding nicknames - either for the substance or the act of taking it - it quickly gets out of hand, with all sort of geographically-localised versions appearing, and virtually no way to verify them. Despite what it says for under "recreational use," for example, "rolling" is not really particularly common in the UK at all, and neither is the singular form (nor is "thizzing," for that matter). Nick Cooper 08:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think we can include every pet name that comes along for mdma on the main page...the only of the four i would accept that tipton prisoner offered would be "rolls"...as it is used more widely and isnt just a local phenomenon...and people in some quarters use the term "rolling" to describe using it...these others i have never heard...yet "E" or sometimes "X" are the most frequently i have heard and are the term i use when talking of this subject...perhaps tho if tipton prisoner wishes to create a linked page with all the thousands of names that people come up for E then this would be interesting as a side article...all they let u use is wikipedia hugh???...well it could be worse...you can get to all sorts of interesting stuff at least on wikipedia...wikipedia may have found its highest function yet: in helping maintain the sanity of a few unfortunate trapped mdma users...Benjiwolf 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been thinking that it's getting particularly pointless to have so many variations listed, especially since some are claimed to be essentially local variations without any evidence that they are even real. Nick Cooper

If someone wants some reference for some of the names, I was trying to find the source for a comment above about the Florida penal code (could not find it, only references and florida.gov was down) and ran across an article from Dept of Justice which mentions two more names, Beans and Adams http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/mdma/mdma.htm Of course, as soon as adults and cops begin to use the slang terms, the kiddies will think up new ones. But USDOJ is a decent source if someone's worried about geography or whatnot. Gaviidae 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section attacking Ricaurte under Parkinson's needs to be removed. It wasn't MDMA so what is the relevance? If the "holes in the brain" thing creates an inaccurate portrayal, why discuss it?Blackrose10 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs including because it - like much of Ricuarte's previous (at times also misrepresented) work - was featured heavily in government propaganda, and continues to be alluded to, despite the retraction. It's entirely probable that some people will come to this page and, having heard of the "holes in the brain" nonsense, will wonder why it's missing. It needs including precisely because its initial publicity was far greater than the retraction. Nick Cooper 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herein lies the problem. "propaganda" shows your slip a bit. One of the things that needs to be cleaned up on this page, imo, is this fascinating belief that an encyclopedia entry is the place to advance an opinion, a rebuttal to perceived "propaganda". This seems inappropriate. it is inconsistent with neutral point of view. Perhaps there should be a "controversies" section or something for MDMA. But an encyclopedia is, to me, a source for what IS, not a place for discussing what IS NOT if you see my point. A good section on possible lasting consequences should simply omit a link to parkinson's. Encyclopedias would be unbelievably unwieldy if they were diatriabes against rumour and misconception. Now, if you can show, with citations, that misunderstanding of a given point is rampant, than there would be a point of discussing things. but you can't possibly address every erroneous thing that someone somewhere might believe about each and every topic of encyclopedic interest. so it is an inappropriate general defense. and finally, the inclusion of Ricaurte's name is a personal attack and irrelevant if your real issue is something related to "government propaganda", is it not? Blackrose10 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll have to forgive me if I equally have suspiscions about the motives of someone using an account that has never been used for editing Wikipedia until this article on this day. I also fail to see how the section of Ricuarte's self-acknowledged discredited work constitutes an "ad hominem" "attack". Ricuarte's study failed due to fundamental errors and that is a fact, as is that his earlier work was misrepresented. We are not talking about some vague and inconsequential "rumour" here, but work that were widely publicised and cited in support of government policies. Nick Cooper 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it takes little time at all for you to go ad hominem towards me in preference to addressing the issues. out of curiosity, why is it relevant that I begin my wikiness today and on this topic? should I go over and bash around on THC and Meth and, oh say, "garden gnome" a bit? be that as it may, i never said "rumour" applied to the facts of the Ricaurte affair. the point is that if one's real target is the misuse of science by "government propaganda" there is little need to bring in his name. if one's point is to further the sort of personal vilification practiced over at MAPS, mission accomplished but this is no way to get the entry back into some reasonable semblence of neutral. there is an advocacy position for MDMA, clearly. some in this position feel that a sort of "drugs are bad, m'kay" position is the only position in the scientific literature and therefore it is all suspect. this is not justifiable and an uncritical approach to the advocacy side is just as bad as an uncritical approach to the science or even the public policy side.Blackrose10 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving the point by totally sidestepping the Ricuarte issue. Nick Cooper 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really taking your point here. what sidestep? if you can show that there is an area of consistent misunderstanding (and i happen to agree that this is likely the case but you need harder evidence than opinion) than it should be addressed. I don't, however, see any point in making this personal. Especially if one's real target is "government propaganda". There is also no reason to go through the whole "claims were hotly disputed" business- what's the point other than to say "nah, nah we were right all along"? why the comment about Ricaurte failing to "follow up" with RTI? it is sophomoric at best. an encyclopedia entry is just not the place for some he said/she said debate, nor even for a very high level academic debate over the totality of available evidence for that matter! it is a place for the neutral presentation of verifiable information, is it not? now how about you stop sidestepping and address my actual point?Blackrose10 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just had an interesting read of the discussion and history of the page on Ricaurte himself. very fascinating. I suppose I have a little more insight as to "why" there is so much personalization of this page. similar comments on his page keep getting booted so someone goes ahead and puts it in over here, hoping to avoid the living-person policies. this doesn't make it appropriate. Blackrose10 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on a theme here. Why is all this comparison with other drugs here? Why does the death rate need to be compared with anything else? And if it needs to be so compared, how do you select the list of comparators? second hand smoke and generic "alcohol" are particularly bogus because it is not comparing acute reponses. why not focus on chemicals or toxins that produce acute fatality?

The section on hyperthermia is unbelievably speculative and behind the times. I direct you to Freedman et al 2005. Human skin temperature increases in concert with body temperature, cutaneous vessel constriction is not likely to be the issue. Changes in sweating are more likely to contribute but the same study (which was conducted in hydrated, non-dancing subjects) showed that this is because of a delay in the triggering of sweating not because of dehydration! There is no evidence, as yet, that high ambient temperature adds risk in humans or monkeys (rats another story) and in fact there is evidence that it does not. Single study in each case and the jury is still out. but it is interesting that the entry is simultaneously skeptical to the nth about studies concluding risk from MDMA itself and totally accepting of speculative and unproven hypotheses which suggest that all MDMA-related fatality can be attributed to nonMDMA situational factors!Blackrose10 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

people want to see the toxicity of this chemical in comparison to other commonly used drugs...it is a valid comparison to look at commonly used drugs such as alcohol and tobacco in comparison to mdma...we instantly see the acute and also lethal risk and threat of this compared to other things so we have a frame of reference...it would be nice to factor in though acute alcohol poisonings per year if someone finds that stat...from the stats we see quite clearly it is not a serious societal source adding to death rates...comparing mdma to botulism toxin has little meaning...comparing it to dioxin or arsenic has little meaning...it should be compared to other recreationally used chemicals like nicotine so we see a presentation and comparison of its lethal effects on the human population...the fact that many more people die of second hand smoke each year or even fetal deaths from smoking mothers is a very nice fact to have to put things in perspective in this section of acute/toxic & lethal effects...Benjiwolf 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if the goal is to compare toxicity versus other common drugs than it should be more comprehensive. Also, the chosen comparisons should be direct- acute versus acute, not a comparison of acute MDMA fatality with deaths attributable, say to cirrhosis consequent to lifetime alcohol abuse or cancer subsequent to lifetime living with a smoker. I suspect you'd be all over it if a similar apples to oranges contrast was used to argue that MDMA is dangerous. i'm suggesting that it is not merely "nice" to compare apples to apples, it is essential for this to attain a neutral point of view. Blackrose10 21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to ONS figures, ICD-10 codes denoting "accidental poisoning by and exposure to alcohol" (as opposed to all the other alcohol-related causes) accounted for 160 deaths in England & Wales in 2004. Figures for "deaths from drug-related poisoniongs" for the same year show 48 where MDMA was present, 25 of which involved no other drugs. A combination of alcohol and MDMA, either in isolation or with other drugs, accounted for 14 deaths. Nick Cooper 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perfect. exactly the type of approach I would agree with. like to like comparisons and preferably presented directly without editorializing on the relevance or application to public policy. and it would be better still if you included the denominator, you know just like all other legitimate risk statistics one has to present an estimate not of raw rates but of rates relative to some standard of use. per capita users, per dose episode, something along those lines. global stats, presented without denominator may possibly be useful for public policy but tell the individual essentially nothing about relative risk which i assume is what benjiwolf meant by "people want to see the toxicity..."Blackrose10 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i firmly disagree with blackrose...there are two measures...acute lethal toxicity...and actual practical toxicity and contribution to death rates...and in fact the practical effect a recreational drug such as tobacco has on death rates is far far far more important than its acute deaths which are mainly non-existant except maybe a few heart attacks a cig might trigger...its nice to see acute alcohol toxicity, yet really when comparing the lethal effect of various recreational substances we have to look at their effect on the death rates to see their deathly effects...that is the more important comparison...so tobacco has very high lethality yet minimal instantaneous lethality...alcohol has a rather large instantaneous lethality as well as greater lethality in general (mainly as off traffic accidents/murders and such and some acute poisonings)...the true lethal harm of cigarettes is tremendous compared to mdma, even just for unborn children or second hand smoke cases its a degree of magnitude or greater...and there are thousands of times more people dieing from tobacco each year...Benjiwolf 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: when you see these actual impacts a recreational drug is having on society you then can make a solid determination as to where to best spend your money on preventions/treatment to have a significant effect for your money in aiding society and protecting the citizens welfare and lowering death rates and disease...death rates are not the only factor in making this determination though...yet a very important one obviously (or at least it should be in the future with more rational programs dont you think???)(and obviously drugs that impact the health of someone other than the voluntary user are of greatest concern, drugs causing thousands of infant deaths and deaths to others in the smoke area or that lead to thousands of murders and traffic accident deaths are where emergency measures need to be put in place)...Benjiwolf 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

look, i understand the public policy debate issues. your points are pertinent to such a question. my view is that an encyclopedia entry is not the place for what would necessarily be a very lengthy debate. a place for the hard information relevant to such a debate, such as fatality rates, sure. but even if you limit it to "recreational drugs" the list is still to long for a concise entry, imo. so you have to select your comparisons. and doing so leads to a loss of neutrality unless you adhere to some semblence of rational rules. overall cumulative death rate versus acute toxicity doesn't make the grade as i see it. ignoring drugs more commonly abused with minimal tox (cannabis) is peculiar. Blackrose10 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree perhaps cannabis death rate should be included...(someone got that???)...(pretty low just some few traffic deaths perhaps ((supposedly far far fewer than more debilitating alcohol))...i do think however, there is not at all a debate in the article's actual section and it is just a couple lines comparing death rates and toxicities...alcohol, tobacco, (as stands) and then ganga, plus cocaine % a hallucinogen like LSD or shrooms i would think would be brief yet covers our main comparitives...so add lsd, cocaine, and cannabis someone if u wish more info...(perhaps an abused pharma too)...yet comparing to the two most heavily used drugs tobacco and alcohol is sufficient in some senses...and the death rate from allergic shellfish reactions and nuts etc. puts it all in some perspective (and gives us a little different perspective than a DEA site that makes no mention of shellfish & nut deaths)(were not the DEA here)...anyways as i dont think ganga is included in anyones tables of deaths as the figure hovers around zero... what is the use of including something that leads to no deaths at all???...and anyways one year death rate is the valid accurate comparison when assessing a substances lethal toxicity impacts...then u can mention just exactly how and why the substance/drug caused these deaths and how many were overnight acute deaths...Benjiwolf 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for England & Wales, for the 12 years 1993-2004 there were 8 in total where only cannabis was implicated - never higher than 2 in a single year, and seven years with none at all - average of 0.6 per year. Cannabis + alcohol 57 over the same period, with a low of 2 and high of 8 - 4.75 per year on average. Cannabis + at least one other drug is 147 - 12.25 per year on average.[3] Nick Cooper 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well it seems less than 1 death per year from cannabis alone in britain, im not sure where ur statistics are from, i would have guessed between 10-100 from traffic death & just cannabis each year...yet perhaps i overestimate...just how is it they died anyways???...u need to smoke a bale of the stuff to die from it...must have been traffic death or violent crazy person that happened to have some ganga in their system too???...8 deaths in 12 years???...how many from lightning in 12 years in the UK???...Benjiwolf 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i go to the shellfish page and see two sentences describing toxicty and death...why is it we even have an mdma section on lethal effects??? and not just a single sentence, "there have been a few reported cases of people dying from mdma similar in number to yearly shellfish deaths"...why is it we dont???...because we want as much info as possible...yet when creating a long section on mdma deaths we need to put this in perspective as to how much of an issue it really is for society...if someone (anonymous user???blackrose???)...wants to remove the sentences putting this topic in perspective..then im going to eliminate the entire section to make it as long as the shellfish article on deaths: one sentence on mdma deaths...i dont like deleting info though, so please dont delete cited factual information and i wont have to...Benjiwolf 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have there been any studies in mice/rats that use a high zinc+ high vitamin C multi-vitamin/mineral coating on an adjusted standard mg/kg dose that a human responsible-user would employ (eg. a 75mg, 100mg, 125mg, 150mg??? human mg/kg))...what would the tests show 1 dose in a year, 2 in year, 4 in a year, 6 in a year, 12 in a year??? etc.)...how about human test with one dose with the coated pill, that have never used any drugs and dont thruout the study???...how would that affect memory tests and such???...someone please if these types of tests havent been carried out on various animals subjects and humans, do some so we start to get an accurate idea of the toxicity of mdma...both with control, normal pill, and vit/min. coated pill...its time the propaganda wars ended and the public gets accurate information on substances they might voluntarily use or see others voluntarily use...its time we establish a clear toxicty threshhold for mdma & humans...its time we see exactly what it takes to block any possible toxicty...Benjiwolf 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, i'd suggest you become familiar with PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) if you are genuinely interested in navigating what is / is not known about various topics of concern to health. this assumes that you are indeed honestly interested in

an accurate idea" of anything in particular. second, it is almost categorically the case that the exact perfect study that you dream up to answer your own question has not been done, this is the beauty of being in science as it happens. there is always lots more to accomplish. but it is also the case that you have to apply what is, at the core, basic common sense. That is, science arrives at some approximation of what is likely to be so by....approximation (and replication). by the totality of the evidence and by converging evidence. not by one study which either proves or disproves something categorically. so don't fall into the intellectually lazy position of finding an objection to a single paper and concluding that you know what is true. This is what is so bizarre about the obsession with the Ricarute 2002 Science paper- as if the fact that this even occurred questions the dozens of studies conducted previously by many investigators showing lasting serotonergic alterations produced by MDMA. This is also what is so bizarre about the unending stream of allegedly informed critique of the scientific literature by the MAPS group. One gets the impression that the advocacy position never met a scientific study that they agree actually demonstrated anything. For those of us that tend to understand the benefits and limitations of the scientific process, this appears to be a theological process. One driven by pre-existing belief rather than a quest to find out what might be so. If one is inclined to read the scientific literature carefully, one tends to find that it is not consistent with belief of a monolithic government propaganda enterprise, but rather clearly identifies consistencies and gaps in existing knowledge. Yes, and identifies limitations to specific experiments and whole approaches as well. so there is lots of information on what "people might actually use". the question is whether is it communicated effectively. there are three major barriers in this area that I see. first, trust (see "government propaganda" verbiage), two, education (i am dismayed at the general lack of understanding of the scientific process and the concept of probability and variance-this goes waaaaaay beyond the topic at hand) and third, what might be termed advocacy propaganda which attempts to advance a theological agenda, part of which is intentionally misrepresenting scientific observation. Blackrose10 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of "clear toxicity threshold" one needs to consider a few things. First, the concept of a "clear threshold" does not exist, period. In pharmacology there is a truism that everything is toxic, all you are discussing is the dose. I would add that there is also the issue of individual susceptibility to various insults and, of course, environmental or situational contributors. Second, any approximation of a threshold is going to depend on outcome of interest. Mortality? Permanent effects on cognitive function? Effects which last X amount of time? interaction with other natural or exogenous insults? The "threshold" is going to vary so you have to be clear on outcome measure. Third, from a public policy perspective there is a further issue of cost/benefit meaning that idea of "threshold" for various outcomes is further varied. Take the 3.75 mg/kg cumulative dose in current clinical trials (that's right, add it up for 50kg adult women). It likely has some nonzero risk value that can be attributed to it. Now if the benefit is relief from a lifetime of PTSD symptoms (per the claims) or if the benefit is one good night of psychotropic drug use, the equation is substantially different even if the direct physiological drug risk is the same. Governments take additional steps of dealing with the legal issues associated with criminalization, civic approaches to liberty/privacy, broad scale public health issues, etc as you well know. I happen to agree with much of what seems to be your public policy agenda, however I emphatically disagree that the public policy debate is some sort of integral part of an encyclopedia entry on MDMA. And I particularly object to an approach that seems to willfully downplay or misrepresent established knowledge on the toxic effects.Blackrose10 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not trying to downplay acute lethal effects, yet im putting them in perspective, there is currently a scare tactic agenda in many countries on this subject of MDMA now, and the fact is things like pesticides and herbicides which are far more toxic and that effect people in a non-voluntary manner have a completely different set of guidelines to what chemicals people may choose to voluntarily come into contact with...it is somewhat hypocritical...if people want to use scare tactics then take a look at tobacco and alcohol with massive harm, leading to many millions of deaths & suffering each decade just in the US, add up unborn infant deaths from tobacco in a decade to hit 10,000, add up second hand smoke to hit 30,000...this just in the US...add up legal pharmaceutical deaths and abuses to hit tens of thousands from these...yet i dont live in that land anymore, and i never will again, i am tired of the hypocrisy, and im tired of seeing people dying & suffering (by the millions even) as of the hypocrisy...two years of hypocrisy and you hit one million deaths from alcohol and tobacco in the US...yet people want to use their scare tactics on MDMA???...3000 people died from 911, in the year 2001...that was horrible...well guess what???...3000 people died from second hand smoke that year too...and they did the next year...and the next year...and every year...im upset with all the millions dying themselves from alcohol and tobacco, yet they take these voluntarily, the approach should be accurate propaganda & information and not criminal law and prohibition...criminal law comes when you affect others than yourself...if you are drunk (or have anything in your system that may affect ur driving including mdma) and then you run someone over on the highway then its time for criminal law...anyways MDMA is far far less a concern than these other drugs...and doesnt lead to these deaths on people other than the actual user...the number of deaths is similar to shellfish allergy and nut allergy...some people happen to be "allergic to MDMA"..."the allergy" is typically their own irresponsibilty leading to their deaths, yet sometimes its accidental like with shellfish & nut deaths, sometimes its as of these prohibitions and people dont know what they have taken, or the size of it in mg, or its impure or not even MDMA

anyways as to threshholds...yes i understand ur statements, yet the fact is many studies on MDMA toxicity were based on massive repeat overdoses or with multi-drug abusers...when this biochemical was listed, enough studies such as i mentioned were not done...even without studies like this, they didnt listen to the DEA judge and placed it in schedule I instead of III right???...and we dont have a good idea of the various toxicity threshhold yet and its because studies like these wernt done...we have a general idea...we could have had a very precise idea yet people are subtley conducting studies to prove it harmful using things like unreasonable doses (that tell us possible pathways and areas to look in and little else)...and also volunteers that lead to skewed results...its been many decades of research with this and we should have been able to say just what the mg/kg non-toxic dose is(im talking about minor toxicity like to serotonin receptors and such or to memory, not for acute deaths) the fact is the research was handled poorly and was even just blocked from happening...and the fact is people need to do some research on a highzinc+vitaminC-multivitamin/mineral coated mdma pill and play with the coatings to see what totally blocks any possible mild toxicty...ive never heard of a study doing that...maybe you need to take the vitamin-mineral supplement some time before the mdma?...people need to study this to see if theres an effect and what the best timing is...but the fact is even without methods like this it could likely pass drug registration...put it with vitamin/mineral coat with the mdma absorbed after the vitamin/mineral coat takes action...then you can even put in a delayed absorbed SSRI if that isnt enough...yet i betcha just the vitamin/mineral coat is even enough...and maybe you dont even need that if the dose is responsible level and not taken every day for weeks on end...(the delayed absorbed SSRI could be used to block those that would abuse mdma, from causing neurotoxic effects to themselves, until a more rational responsible system comes to the fore besides prohibition which leads to abuse and unpredictability of dose)...Benjiwolf 11:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your comment that "research was handled poorly" bears addressing. first, it is not at all clear that you are intimately familiar with the literature. in the case of MDMA there is absolutely no excuse for this since MAPS maintains a nearly comprehensive database of the MDMA-related scientific literature which is available to anyone with a Web connection. if you were familiar with the literature, you would realize that a lot of studies have been done addressing questions of threshold and route of administration, particularly in the early going in the late 80s and early 90s. yes some from your favorite guy Ricaurte but also from others. second, statements such as this, as well as "blocked from happening" betray a further misunderstanding of the way science is conducted. it is true that there is a lot of apparatus in place to ensure the quality of science and to minimize some guys' random speculation or belief about what might be the case based on personal anecdote coming to be viewed as authoritative evidence. sure. and funding agencies are able to pick and chose what to fund out of what has been proposed to them (the NIH, for one, does not however interfere in the actual science after funding, see recent Johns Hopkins study on psilocybin). but to suggest we don't know anything about threshold because of someone or something "blocks" the right kind of research? come on. finally, let's take the issue of outcome measure. most of what I discuss in terms of "threshold" is relevant to the outcome of lasting alterations in brain serotonergic function from a neurochemical perspective. along comes a paper by Giorgi et al 2005 showing that 5 mg/kg MDMA twice a day for only two days in a mouse (not much of a dose if you really understand pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism. but see below for more on "massive overdose") results in a susceptibility for seizure. nobody really paid much attention to seizure before. in part because it was probably assumed that human seizure was thermogenic. but if you look carefully at the case reports you will see that there is really no way to tell which came first in people who "collapsed" or presented with tonic or clonic seizure-like behavior in combination with high temperature. giorgi shows that their phenomenon is not associated with frank serotonergic alterations. the point here, again, is that the idea of "threshold" depends on outcome measure and like it or not research is finite. all one can do is present what is known. the absence of data does not imply that something is "safe". it seems to me that trying to create an encyclopedic entry that navigates all possible relevant comparisons, rather than simply stating what is known will end up being uninformative at best.

now as far as your pet vitamin example i confess i don't know the specific relevance. in general terms there has been the occasional study to test out the folk remedy against MDMA-tox thing. hydration levels, SSRIs and ambient temperature, to name a few. is it of interest to the scientist to chase around every combination of conditions under which some individual might become exposed to MDMA? not really. is there a legitimate and interesting mechanism at work that might explain how MDMA produces it's effects? then someone will get around to it eventually.

"massive overdose". another pet critique of the science. first, you should be gratified that much recent attention has been paid to improving this area with considerably more low-dose and actual pharmacokinetic data appearing in recent years. however, you will go bust betting that some incredible seeming recreational dose or combination or schedule is not being done by some person and likely quite a few people. take a look at some of the human cognitive-deficit type literature and look quite carefully at the categories for most-tablets-in-a-night. it is not hard proof, sure, because it is self-report and nobody knows tablet content. sure. but given the numbers of reports, analyses of tablet content (and percentage pure/impure) it is very hard to believe an argument that there are not substantial numbers of people being exposed to 5 and 10 mg/kg doses. a single 5 mg/kg oral dose led to lasting brain changes in nonhuman primates. the abovementioned seizure data are also of interest. data are trickling out that single doses of this magnitude may lead to some medical emergency in other nonhuman models, stay tuned. the point being that continually beating the "massive overdose" drum is part of what looks like a willful misrepresentation of the scientific data. just because there is a high-dose model which has been used to address the question of mechanism does not mean that this is the threshold for lasting damage.Blackrose10 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you dont seem to understand, the fact is research was blocked and very hard to carry out for many years. This has been the case with other things than mdma too. It is highly relevant to carry out studies with an antioxidant coated pill, many people do take vitamin/mineral supplements while taking mdma, and people might even start designing pills coated with such things. I agree with you some people take overdoses, i agree it is unhealthy, yet i argue many times they take these large amounts specifically in this climate of prohibition, not knowing what they have taken or the size dose, not trusting any government propaganda as it is half false, not being provided with accurate information, anyways clearly the animal studies dont show the reality, millions of people use mdma, seizures are a rarity and no one is even sure its really the mdma when on these rare occasions, in the US 80,000 people die from alcohol each year, 440,000 die from tobacco, maybe 10 or so die just from mdma, 1000 unborn infants die from tobacco, at least 3000 people die from second-hand smoke, mdma seizures are one of the least of our worries, & ur better off warning people how to avoid lightning, yet the legislation instead prioritizes those 10 deaths like they are the end of the world...Benjiwolf 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what i do not understand is how the research was "blocked" as you put it. please get specific. i have a passing familiarity with the way MDMA science is funded and conducted, in the US as one example. it is true that it is not easy to do independent science, to get trained, find a job, acquire funding. there is a process and yes, another one to get permission to experiment with controlled substances. it is bogus to suggest that specific kinds of research are "blocked" just because some individual fails to navigate this fairly brutal system. it is also bogus, and in fact MAPS is guilty of this, to make one half-hearted attempt to acquire grant funding and say "see, they won't fund me" while ignoring the fact that, at present, only some 7-10% of proposals are getting funded. And only about 1% are getting funded the first time they are submitted. One does not get funded just because one has a good idea, there are simply too many of them. in addition, success goes up with some prior demonstration that one can actually do good quality science. Does it mean that the research topic is "blocked" if a given investigator doesn't have the track record, can't write a paper or a grant properly? no, and this has nothing to do with topic. It is true that there is a bias in science (again, not specific to MDMA) for funding and publishing work that has an interpretable outcome. Meaning that a bunch of "experiments" which fail to show any effect are not going to fare well. There are good reasons for this; it is all to easy to have an experiment fail to show anything. This is not, however, an impediment to anyone with an ounce of sense who wants to address issues of toxicity threshold, the key being to have good positive control conditions. Any fair minded person can see this because just about every single paper involving MDMA or Ecstasy has one dependent variable or another where there was no effect! The reporting of such non-effects weren't "blocked", by definition.

The bottom line is this. People on the MDMA advocacy side advance a paranoid world view in which (take the US) a right wing prohibitionist political agenda co-opts the government science and health apparatus to rigidly control the conduct of individual scientists to promulgate a propagandistic and untrue picture of MDMA. This is jaw-droppingly laughable to anyone who is involved with biomedical science in general and drug abuse scientists in particular. Do you have any idea what sort of person becomes a scientist in the first place? mulish independence is one of the more common traits. left-of-center politics are a well established fact.

think again bro [[4]] thats right, college degree 49% bush, 49% kerry,...some college 54% bush, 46% kerry, college grads 52% bush, 46% Kerry, and only in post grads did it swing back 44% bush, 55% kerry, to give us the overall average 49% bush & 49% kerry, so even in scientists with post graduate degrees there is only a 10% difference...in addition to that you must realize that hundreds of millions of people outside of america would categorize bush as not only right, but radical right...half of the college educateds in amiland voted extreme right in that election. This business about a liberal academy or a liberal american media is ridiculous, and only exists as an argument within the states, & its proposed by the right to shift things even more right. Most people outside the states have no illusions that the entire country is right leaning, & many democrats in america would be conservatives in europe for instance...and thats fine if the states wants to be right, but dont try and play these illusory games with educated folks from outside the states blackrose, the US as a whole is a right leaning country, about the furthest right leaning developed country in the world, its mainstream media is right leaning, and so is even much of its scientific establishment and many of its academicians...thats OK, yet thats the reality, turn on Amy Goodman from public TV & "Democracy Now" if you want to see left media, otherwise it doesnt exist (if your area even carries her, where i was visiting in the states she came on at midnight when everyone was already to sleep) 83.78.187.33 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course we're not talking about the general college graduate population are we? We're discussing the people conducting the MDMA-related science. To wit, doctoral degreed scientists and, when it comes right down to it, those who have an independent research lab. why should observing that such individuals tend toward the left-of-center generate such ranting about overall US politics?Blackrose10 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and!...and!!!..it took several homosexual scandals, one in the republican congress!, near 2000 people drowning like rats in New Orleans!!, several high profile corporate corruption trials, including Ken Lay one of the presidents personal friends and top fundraisers & previous chairman of the RNC!!!, major lobbying scandals, including the abramoff scandal with links to many many republicans including the president, & with several republican resignations including Tom DeLay the House Majority Leader!!!!, and...and!!!... a bloody fiasco with 4000 brave american service people and military contractors dead in Iraq!!!!!, and thousands upon thousands of cripples and wounded, & 24/7 daily Iraqi civilian massacres..in short it took a virtual tidal wave to get the americans, including their scientific establishment, to give a miniscule democrat majority in congress, (in the senate that shifts back if even a single dem senator dies!)(if the states wants to be right thats fine, just dont pretend with a straight face to those outside america's borders that it is somehow some liberal bastion, the "left wing media" or "left wing academy" propaganda only works on Americans, in America)(sure there are some liberals in america, after all there are 300 million people, yet unlike Osama Bin Laden, they are "securely contained", amy goodman for instance is "securely contained" 83.78.187.33 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while it must be fun ranting about US policy, scientists (heck, people employed by some sort of university) are a minority. is this not obvious?Blackrose10 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a former american citizen living in switzerland, it certainly is fun having free reign to go off about american politics!, yet anyways i just dont buy this line about a left wing bias in the american academy. Yes i understand that people employed by universities & scientists dont constitute the average american perspective, are a minority, and come to issues with more accurate information, yet in my estimation of the issue the american academy is rather neutral when it comes to left or right wing biases, there are people in the academy on both sides & at center, a particular school may lean slightly to one side, yet even then you can generally find a large number of people from the school that list to the other side also, and dont you think that as the academicians are supposedly more educated and more knowledgeable that wherever they lie is indeed the neutral point, and the rest of the population is what truly lists to one side or the other? if people are coming to me saying there is a left wing bias in the academy, it tells something all right, it tells me the academy is almost surely rather neutral, yet if people place them left of the population, that its actually the population that is right of the central neutral point, which is where the academy approximately lies: at the neutral point in the center...in fact its one of the basic precepts of an academician or scientist, an unbiased centrist perspective sceptical of all sides and without prejudice to one so as to come up with good accurate research, of course there is some play and deviation from this precept, yet it is a general goal of many in the academy 83.78.169.134 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

novel findings and approaches are the best respected career outcomes.

Now as to the "half-false" propaganda. It seems to me that what you are objecting to is mostly the interpretation of data and possible what you see as an attempt to create an inaccurate impression. How is this any different from your concerted effort to question the veracity of scientists, object to every laboratory finding on minimally informed grounds and minimize harm by comparing it to other essentially unrelated categories of risk? This distills my most essential objection to your approach to this entry. That there is much here that is trying to advance a belief, an agenda, even a theological position rather than simply sticking to what is known about MDMA. Sounds like propaganda to me.Blackrose10 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P:S: the american academy tilts just slightly right these days, & of course its to be expected after a direct attack on the US on septemeber 11 to find such a tilt rightwards...83.78.169.134 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have consistently dodged the issue of priorities and the facts that 10 or so people die each year from mdma similar to deaths from peanuts, vrs several degrees of magnitude more for even second hand smoke. The veracity of scientists wasnt questioned, yet since you bring that up why not?...and "every laboratory finding" wasnt either. You have never addressed the multiple lab findings that in recommended dose it is totally harmless. You have never addressed the fact that vast numbers of people die from multiple other drugs, including legal ones, and even people not using are killed from others using. You also consistently dodge responding to issues of high zinc+C vitamin/mineral supplements used in combination with MDMA, and doing studies to acertain the several ways of exactly how to block toxicity, of even large definitely neurotoxic overdoses. You seem to have a paranoid view that anyone not slamming mdma are conspiracy theorists or something, or else you revert to the excuse that they havnt looked at the evidence enough, or pretend that MAPS is somehow a lone crazy organization advocating MDMA for certain medical issues. In the current climate of fear surrounding mdma, to advocate such a thing publicly is no easy task, yet Rick Doblin isnt at all alone. (Maybe you need to read some more chemistry and to look at a few more mdma studies yourself). Ive gone to college with all sorts of other science types next to me, there are all sorts bro, and a bunch of em are intellectual rejects even too, you cant at all generalize about scientists, some are very smart, some aren't so smart. "mulish independence"...think again, half the scientists are slavishly beholden to the status quo, they believe just about anything, and are more concerned with pleasing their superiors or getting funding or jobs than anything else, it just really depends on the scientist. Sorry for my right wing bias!, yet!: Itd be a catastrophe if not for the very bright ones steering the rest in the proper direction.

Anyways we know much but not all science is relatively independent, and much of it is good, most scientists whether "right" or "left" are typically good and decent people, and at least they are of above average intelligence hopefully, yet we know for a fact that there are some issues and controversies in some areas, such as drug politics and other areas, some scientists even just get straight up paid off for one side or the other.[[5]] Oh...and ridiculous government propaganda and half false info doesnt exist?, such as mdma drains your spinal fluid? You must be a lay person and not a scientist, as the hallmark of a scientist is being a sceptic, including scepticism of science being always 100% correct, especially on controversial issues. If this is your brain blackrose...this sounds like your brain on propaganda. Someday most all science will be independent and neutral, someday in the future perhaps. Your crying wolf about MDMA when there is a Tyrannosaurus rex devouring people through tobacco, alcohol, and many many other substances, both drugs legal and illegal, and certain chemical products used in mass. Yes abusive or addictive personality types exist in this world, yes if they abuse MDMA it can do some harm to themselves perhaps, yet I'd rather have my neighbors abusing MDMA than alcohol (which damages your brain and multiple body systems) and even beating their wives or other people and running people over in the streets. I'd also rather see them do MDMA than tobacco, altering their brains[[6]] and ruining their lungs, and even in some cases turning into narrow minded paranoid uptight jerks always desperate for their next nicotine fix, and poisoning their neighbors with their second hand smoke. If people abuse instead of use MDMA, sure maybe some aspects of their memory might be somewhat impaired, at least theyll be nice and sweet though. But even heavy abusers remember who they are, how to drive a car, how to cook dinner, in fact they remember most anything they need to remember. But we allow them to choose these and not MDMA? Its attitudes like yours, of deflections from our true problems, that have helped crush the health care systems. People should be free to choose, yet they need good information & accurate propaganda, the tobacco page on wikipedia compared to the MDMA page was ridiculous, MDMA even has established medical uses, yet there wasnt even a mention of the types of numbers of deaths we are seeing with utterly useless tobacco, let alone long detailed sections on the many toxic effects, finally after today at least on the page, we can see the numbers of deaths each year in the states. Anyways, you sound somewhat educated, but to point you in the right direction, your best argument blackrose against MDMA, will be Huxley's insinuated argument in Brave New World, as very soon we will even be able to block toxicty from doses above the recommended dose and have the blocking engineered right into the pill, its actually a rather simple task compared to many. I'll respond to the Huxley argument in another essay...83.79.168.184 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are projecting a very large number of arguments upon me that i've not made now, aren't you? i'm making no arguments "for" or "against" MDMA and the fact that you think this should be a discussion "for" or "against" MDMA makes the point. This discussion is misplaced in an encylopedia entry. I doubt you have any idea where I stand on the public policy implications for MDMA or any other psychoactive and I've acknowledged tacitly and overtly that I agree MDMA results in far fewer deaths per year than a whole host of other threats including psychoactive drugs. There is no "dodge" involved in suggesting this is the wrong place for a public-policy-implications discussion. Also, I've never said there was no such thing as government propaganda with respect to the dangers of MDMA. Rather I take exception to a consistent perspective that all science in this area is simply a tool of said government propaganda. It doesn't square with available facts, is paranoid and is used cynically, IMO, by pro-MDMA propagandists to advance their agenda. Here's a hint, I'm not a big fan of misrepresentation of science to advance any public policy agenda "for" or "against" MDMA.Blackrose10 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was never a proposition that all science relating to mdma was a tool of anti-mdma propaganda. Merely that more science needed to be done in this area, especially coming to the issue with the perspective that it is non-toxic or with ways to show it is non-toxic when used properly or with neuroprotective coatings on the pill for example. Only some of the science in this area has been coopted by an anti-mdma lobby, and usually its not the science itself in question, its the way it is presented by the lobby, yet sometimes too the science itself has serious faults so that its conclusions are in question...129.132.239.8 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P:S: as to research blocked, well for starters when it was placed in schedule I instead of schedule III, (against the DEA's own judge's recommendations to place it III), that was a highly effective block to research...83.78.187.33 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh my. if this is your definition of "blocked", i really have little to say. if laws and regulation that limit the context in which research may be conducted is "blocking" it, you can say this about 1) any and all animal research and 2) and the vast majority of controlled human research. Even calling in a bunch of undergraduates to push a key on a computer requires IRB approval for goodness sakes. Blackrose10 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet as to blocking id have to disagree, putting it into schedule I against the own DEA judge's determinations, was an effective block to research making it far more difficult, and wasnt in line with the scientific experts and judge at the trial and the information they presented, plus it casts a dark shadow on the substance when it is placed in this category which also further complicates effective accurate research and funding requests, your drawing parallels to animal research in general or the undergrads doesnt quite make sense in a response to that...placing a substance into a category harsher than is called for is a method of blocking research on that substance, it may not be the prime reason for so doing, yet many times may partially be done for that reason at least, circumventing the accepted definitions of where a substance should be placed constitutes blocking, denying the validity of a large groups call (in the case of mdma it was mainly professional certified medical & psychological experts) for a substances designation to a category to permit more research is effectively blocking them from carrying out that research, if it had been placed in category three and also hadnt been so demonized, we would indeed have a much greater wealth of information on this substance, from more accurate toxicological information to more medical-potential information, you cant get around that fact. Indeed, if this had been a substance with no potential for recreational use, and was merely a pharmaceutical candidate, it even would likely have been passed through drug registration by now by a powerful pharma, instead it was denied status as a potential pharmaceutical, when it had even been used as one for many years by professional certified medical experts, and was instead labelled as having no potential medical use despite it being used by the medical profession, and was placed in the most dangerous category reserved for substances that should have disasterous catastrophic effects on human beings & society. So methamphetamine gets status as a medical substance and mdma doesnt? Tobacco isnt even listed yet causes near a half million deaths a year in the states, including thousands of deaths to unborn infants and non-smokers, not even considering birth defects??? Thats absolute rubbish and hypocrisy. great! i have no problem doing medical studies with tobacco but its basically useless, with MDMA? good luck trying to carry out some studies!, try getting through all the paperwork & permits let alone get some funding, now finally after extreme persistance by some researchers we are seeing a couple studies into its medical potential, yet for nearly two decades research has been effectively blocked and hampered, not by scientists, by those outside the scientific establishment actually and against their wishes and recommendations, but those trying to prove it harmful or demonize it were well funded 129.132.239.8 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyways the mild potential toxicity is what will save the substance actually, as pure mdma it isnt patentable, yet pharma concerns will be able to patent a pill designed with no potential toxicity so will take an interest, and the fact that its a pharma product that millions upon millions of people have tested out, and are even willing to break the law to take, means it will be a top seller, large numbers of people like this medication, and it will replace dozens of other medications for various problems, meds that have more serious unpleasant side effects and modes of action...it could potentially radically take over the place of several established psychoactive pharmaceuticals for many varied psychological ailments, and ill betcha i could come up with a bunch of fancy test designs to show these other meds are slightly neurotoxic or maybe effect memory, no problem, a few of the concerns heavily into certain meds will try and slow or block this medications rise, yet others not yet so heavily into psychoactives will rush to get an approved pill out to wrest huge profits & market share from them, so the first may have to also rush to get an approved pill out as well 129.132.239.8 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its a situation somewhat different than that for cannabis for instance. Cannabis was unpatentable of course, and it was mainly its effects other than psychoactive effects that were sought after by the medical profession. So you had Eli Lilly under the Quayles and Bushes block cannabis in the states despite side effects and toxicities less than many prescribed meds, yet at the same time design medications based on the substance yet eliminating its psychoactive properties. With MDMA however, in pure form its unpatentable of course, yet a fancy dancy 100% non-toxic engineered pill is patentable, plus its specifically its psychoactive function that is what is desired in the medication...in terms of its recreational use and impact on society, currently its very easily obtained just like any prohibited substance is, part of the problem is people have little idea as to purity and standardization and dose size in pure mg, so this causes excess toxicity issues, plus a pill design could be put out there that is even less toxic than pure mdma, plus you have pharmacists prescribing it and distributing it, and you can have labels and directions, instead of street dealers, (some of whom are pure criminals) distributing random unknown doses of unlabelled pills which might be mdma or which might be something far more toxic, many of the street dealers arent actual criminals and dont deal in weapons and really harmful substances, yet many are criminals of a lesser or greater sort (yes of course the Bushes deal in weapons too, yet i think they are mostly out of eli lilly these days for instance with more of just a national interest in it now as its an american company, and of course other pharmas may get the rights to mdma based pills that have less direct connection to weapons dealers)(for some reason its the big weapons dealers that are OK yet the little people are frowned upon)(so it is in this world)...anyways either way, whatever, people will still be able to get as much mdma as they want, it just seems to me perhaps its better to go legit with it for several reasons, and people will have a better medical product too 129.132.239.8 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "Some MDMA users administer an SSRI while, or shortly after taking MDMA, in an a ttempt to prevent possible neurotoxicity. These SSRIs are typically antidepressants such as fluoxetine or sertraline. This is done to prevent dopamine from entering through the serotonin reuptake mechanism, where it is theorized that monoamine oxidase enzymes then break it down into harmful chemicals." under adverse affects is not entirely accurate. An SSRI is a SELECTIVE Serotinin reuptake inhibitor, meaning that it selectively inhibits the reuptake of Serotonin. It does not block the reuptake of dopamine (even though both are monoamine neurotransmitters). I'll try to gather some thoughts and sources to expand accurately on this section. =) Apoptic 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, MAO does break down dopamine that is transported back to the presynaptic neuron (via the dopamine reuptake pump), but this is a natural, necessary occurence! Apoptic 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that SSRIs block the non-selective uptake of dopamine through the serotonin transporter. But if you check the original publications, you can see that the effect was very small. Cacycle 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand ever so slightly. The use of "reuptake inhibitor" in SSRI is unfortunate in this particular application. Compounds in this class should perhaps have been termed selective serotonin transporter inhibitors because, as is alluded to here, there is evidence that the serotonin transporter moves dopamine into serotonin terminals. There is work suggesting that this effect underlies toxicity although of course the relative magnitude of the contribution is not well established. So the point which concerns Apoptic is more or less sound. If dopamine transport via the serotonin transporter mediates toxicity, blocking dopamine transport by the serotonin transporter (using a serotonin transporter inhibitor) should be protective. The magnitude of contribution is debatable and there aren't many studies on this but there's nothing wrong with the logic.Blackrose10 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I stand corrected, thank you. Does anyone have reference to a particular good study on SSRI protection from MDMA? I seem only to find studies based on patient subjectivity. =) Apoptic 06:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goni-Allo et al 2007 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17320075&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Orio et al 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15189347&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Fantegrossi et al. 2003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12563544&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Sanchez et al 2001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11522596&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

just for starters...go to the MAPS bibliography http://www.maps.org/sys/w3pb.pl?face=simple/ and search for fluoxetine to get started. Blackrose10 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

people consistently try and remove (usually anonymous users) the death figures from alcohol or tobacco, they know that to put things in perspective really hurts anti-mdma lobbys & ridiculous propaganda, and hurts pro-alcohol pro-tobacco lobbys...yet it is only in there to give a referenced perspective about the seriousness of the problem, i am reinstating factual information from the DEA itself!!! the simply fact is that 80,000+ people die from alcohol each year, 440,000+ from tobacco, 10 perhaps from mdma alone, maybe 100 with mdma but other things in their blood, mdma causing a similar amount of deaths to shellfish and nut poisonings, on the other hand alcohol & tobacco are lethal substances, I will begin deleting all information about deaths and mdma to a similar length as is for shellfish in line with how wikipedia presents things that cause a dozen deaths a year if people do not desist from blocking referenced material of valid comparisons to other commonly used drugs like alcohol and tobacco! 83.79.136.221 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: tell the eli lilly reps! tell them i am hitting their page on prozac hard with some stating 25,000 deaths by suicide if people dont lay off this page and stop removing statistics! In fact the page on aspirin doesnt mention deaths in the intro, deaths in the UK from aspirin and mdma are very similar, yet there has been a trend in the last ten years for aspirin deaths to head from the 30s to less than 10, and mdma from less than 10 to the 30s, anyways i want mention of mdma deaths in the intro as i come with a medical perspective and its good to show that a medicine can be lethal even if it is extremely rare, but to even this out with other pages on other pharmaceuticals besides mdma i am going to start heading to all medicine pages and start putting death stats in the intro!!!...83.79.136.221 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell would you use threats like "i am hitting their page on prozac hard with some stating 25,000 deaths by suicide if people dont lay off this page and stop removing statistics!" on Wikipedia?! If you haven't noticed: this site is about neutral information. If you feel the urge to put whatever neutral information you want on any page, go ahead and do it. It makes no sense whatsoever to threat people that you are going to put information about something anywhere if they do/don't do something... Navmans 06:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Poly substance use" section was copied from this page: http://thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/mixing.htm

Sigh... GarconDansLeNoir 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come down currently redirects here: ...The Dandy Warhols Come Down. I am thinking maybe a new article should be created for come downs (3 mentions here isn't enough), after all even Suicide Tuesday has a page of its own. Alternatively Come down could become a disambiguation page with a definition of come down and links to MDMA and other related pages, as well as a link to '...The Dandy Warhols Come Down'. This is also mentioned here: Talk:...The_Dandy_Warhols_Come_Down Any comments? 86.27.109.100 10:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a rather poor use of the Come Down page. That said, I'm not sure whether the MDMA context is enough to "claim" it. I also think Suicide Tuesday is a rather tenuous article in itself, and that both aspects - and others - would be better served by a Recreation use of MDMA (or similar) page. Nick Cooper 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contraindications infromation for extacy should include any drug that acts on dopamine receptors, in particular cocaine, as cocaine will overwhelm the physical euphoria due to increased dopamine levels and thus take away from the "hug drug" aspect of MDMA (www.erowid.org)

Also, most tabs currently on the streets contain Methamphetamine despite the fact that it is specifically mentioned on the contraindications bar (information gained by surveying tested pills on pillreports.com)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.16 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most tabs currently on the streets" where, exactly? If even a sizable minority of street pills contained methamphetimine in any particular area, the appropriate local/national press would be all over it like a rash. Cherry-picking write-ups of rogue tablets on pillreports.com doesn't count. Nick Cooper 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, however, listing "contraindications" tends to suggest that there are well-established connections between MDMA and some other factor (Meth, high ambient temperature, dehydration due to physical activity) in medical emergency/death and that avoiding said interaction of conditions is likely to be "safer". This is not clear at all. As the advocates like to point out, the number of acute deaths from MDMA are small in terms of overall use-episodes. What they don't like to point out is that this means that the underlying causation of death is uncertain. The case reports do not support an exclusive role of any single factor, including excessive MDMA dose. Blackrose10 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I restored the template:verylong on this page, as its length is getting a little bit out of hand. The "Acute toxic/dangerous effects" section alone is 17500 characters long, without any subsections, and the total article length is over 76k. It and the intro are getting a little too lengthy & repetitive. See the manual of style and either deal with the situation or discuss before removing the template. Here's the relevant section of the manual: Wikipedia:Article size. MrZaius^talk 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, I have commented out the following section of this article:

=== MDMA may help Parkinson's disease ===

Research at the University of Manchester indicates that MDMA dramatically reduces tremors in patients receiving L-DOPA treatment for Parkinson's disease. ^{[citation needed]}

In a now-retracted study, a research team led by Dr. George A. Ricaurte at Johns Hopkins University implicated MDMA as a cause of Parkinson's-like brain abnormalities in monkeys, suggesting that a single use of MDMA caused permanent and serious brain damage. These claims were hotly disputed by physicians, therapists, and other experts in the field, including a team of scientists at New York University. Criticisms of the study included its use of injection rather than oral administration; that this type and scale of damage (>20% mortality) would translate to hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths which had not materialized in the real world amidst extremely broad global MDMA usage; and, most importantly, that other research teams could not duplicate the study's findings. ^{[citation needed]}

On September 6, 2003, Dr. George A. Ricaurte and his team announced that they were retracting all results of their commonly cited and controversial study. The researchers said that the labels on the drugs had been somehow switched, and they had inadvertently injected their experimental monkeys and baboons with extremely high doses of methamphetamine instead of MDMA. The chemical supplier, Research Triangle Institute, has publicly claimed that the proper drug was supplied, and Ricaurte has yet to pursue them for their alleged error. ^{[citation needed]}

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[7]. These images are still circulating in educational systems across the U.S., however, and the myth that ecstasy users develop "holes in their brains" ^{[citation needed]} remains quite popular and government funded.

According to the verifiability policy, "articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Further "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About a week ago, I commented out unsourced claims from the infobox concerning care: End of Life & Marriage counselling were both removed (Originally said as much in the Marriage counseling section above). Neither is explained in the article, but both should explained and sourced before removing the comments. Note that the Anxiety infobox entry is also a little vague & requires verification. Was it used as a normal anti-anxiety medication, or is that a duplicate reference to PTSD treatment? Finally, should Parkinsons also be listed in the "Other putative uses" section? MrZaius^talk 12:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is seriously long. I intend to break some of this stuff out into separate articles, but I will begin by trimming the lead by moving some of that stuff into the body. The lead also strikes me as a little too sympathetic; a number of specious comparisons are made to alcohol and various parts of the lead sound like excuses. Simishag 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]