This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Template:Talkheaderlong

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

the way the molecule rendered it looks like the orbital geometry is wrong on the nitrogen for one of the enantiomers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.142.149 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nitrogen in amines is usually considered tetrahedral (sp³) but in most simple compounds does not have a stable configuration: it inverts rapidly (via an sp² intermediate where the lone-pair occupies the p) at room temperature (see Chirality (chemistry)#Chirality of amines for more details). So, except under conditions where the N configuration is frozen or at least being studied directly, it is not usually considered a stereogenic center in casual conversation about the compound. Thus, the secondary C where the methyl is attached is the only "permanent" stereocenter and the two ball'n'stick structures represent the enantiomers of the compound with respect to it. OTOH, it is confusing, and I think would certainly be improved by redrawing the N inverted also, and/or adding an explicit note about amine lone-pair inversion. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I think that the total lack of information about the possibile negative effects of MDMA use is completely inexcusable, irresponsible and most importantly incorrect. No, whether or not a substance is illegal has very little relationship to how dangerous it is. It has nothing to do with how behind the times the US government is, their policies and actions have little to do with research findings on safety. The truth can be found somewhere between the kind of pro-MDMA propaganda in this article and the drug war rubbish the government puts out. MDMA isn't some evil drug that fries holes into your brain, nor is its use risk free, an attitude that this article seems to have been written to encourage. Is there a problem with knee jerk pro-MDMA folks reverting any change containing negative information about MDMA use, whether or not it is truthful, supported and sourced? Is this a Scientology article or something? The current article isn't good for anyone- it doesn't inform those doing research on MDMA and its effect of real possible risks, it doesn't help MDMA users in harm reduction, but worst of all it doesn't present the truth. --Revaaron 01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think labeling this article as "propaganda" is inappropriate, particularly since you have not offered any suggestions as to where such propaganda can be found in the article. The health risks are duly noted in the article, as well as the "Effects" article linked in that section. Your claim about this article's use in "research" is specious: as an encyclopedia, we cite published research, not the other way around. Do you have constructive suggestions for improvement? Simishag 02:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some constructive improvements. This article was entirely ignorant of the past 10 years of MDMA research and I have been careful and put a few hours into updating the risk and safety sections (which seem like they should be callapsed into one section). I cited several sources as well. I am not sure if the downplaying of MDMA's negative effects was propoganda and misinformation or if it was ill-informed wishful thinking- anyway it wasn't factual and that is what I have attempted to correct. This will always be a difficult compromise when users and researchers contribute to the same wiki-entry. Users have a tendency to be in denial of the costs while researchers have a tendency to be moralistic and not interested in the [potential] benefits. jben78wi 6:08, 15 July 2007 (CST)

I'm not particularly impressed with your edits, since you seem to be making a number of claims that can't be checked directly, due to the absence of free links to the articles you're citing. In addition, what is available in article abstracts don't always seem to corroborate the interpretation you place on them. Few people would claim that MDMA is risk free, any more than they would claim alcohol is risk free, but you seem to be making great play of citing sources that document quite marginal effects and blowing them out of all context, as if the effect someone drinking a bottle of absinthe every day has any bearing on the potential effect of one glass a wine a week on someone else. Considering the levels of MDMA consumption in certain countries - even what seem to be conservative official estimates - there seem to be remarkably few "casualties." Nick Cooper 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and I'll also note that much of this information is already present in Effects of MDMA on the human body, a fairly well-cited article about the specific physiological effects of MDMA. Everyone keeps complaining about the lack of info here, but no one's even edited the "Effects" article in almost a month. Please try to add highly specific health information to "Effects" instead of here. This article is already way too long, and it needs to cover more than just health risks. Simishag 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers tend to have an interest in getting grant money as well, much more so than being moralistic. --Funkbrother3000 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ad hominem circumstantial argument. In the absence of specific evidence of fraudulent or biased research, we should endeavor to give proper weight to peer-reviewed studies, without underhanded accusations of bias towards a POV. A source of funding, alone, is not evidence of bias. Simishag 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Nick Cooper's comments:

1)These claims can be directly checked, any research-level university library will carry these journals and as a tax-paying citizen you are welcome to visit the library. It is OK to cite peer-reviewed academic articles on wiki-pedia, just as it is okay to cite books that are currently under copyright.

2) On "marginal effects": The effects are not "marginal" effects; massive axonal death of serotonergic neurons is a very acute and specific effect. I think what you mean is "unknown" effects, because the data only suggests that these biological effects may have correlate mental effects in humans.

3) On "bottle of absinthe every day": The Fischer study uses a single dose on a squirrel monkey. Again the data is suggestive. I reworded some of what I wrote to make it more conditional.

4) On "there seem to be remarkably few 'casualties.'": How do you define casualty? These effects are subtle!! I can remove a non-negligible part of your frontal-lobe (where these 5-HT neurons lie) and you and many others will not notice the difference. The potential effects of axonal death here are not going to lead to physical health problems, they will adversely affect memory and decision making in subtle ways.

On Simishag's comments:

1) I didn't know the article Effects of MDMA on the human body existed. I agree that most of these details can be rolled into that article, but I also think there should be a link to that article at the beginning of the MDMA article and at least a summary of it in the MDMA article, because frankly these effects were not mentioned in the safety section of the MDMA article.

2) thanks for moderating.

On Funkbrother3000's comments:

The point on a researcher's interest in grant money. Yes this motivation is an issue but the peer-review process and replication studies usually take care of this. Generally studies with contaminated data come to the fore eventually... for example it was revealed that in one study on dopamine neurons (Principal Investigator: GA Ricaurte) used data from animals administered methamphetamines and not MDMA. It is notable that the authors themselves brought up the issue after their results failed to replicate- it is much worse to have another researcher discover your mistake than for you to discover it yourself.

jben78wi 9:52, 21 July 2007 (CST)

On your comments to me:

1) Please don't make patronising assumptions of what people have access to based on what may be true where you live, but is not necessarily so for every user of English-language Wikipedia.

2), 3) & 4) Whatever they may mean in a specific scientific context, "chronic harm" and "subtle effects" do not sit well together with most people. "Unknown" is a great red herring, but the fact is that MDMA use has been widespread in certain countries for the last twenty years, with more sporadic use going back a further twenty years. To take a specific example, the Home Office's (very conservative) estimate is that it was used by just over half a million people aged 16-59 in England & Wales in the 2005/06 financial year, and that 2.3 million had ever used it. In the full possible range of usage from a single dose to multiples over many years, this has not manifested itself in widespread physical or mental health (or indeed social) problems attributable to MDMA use.

On your comments to Simishag:

1) The effects article was already appropriately linked on this page when you made your edits. Nick Cooper 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The effects article was already appropriately linked on this page when you made your edits. Nick Cooper 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Nick Cooper: Again, it is OK to cite peer-reviewed academic articles on wiki-pedia that are no free to all, just as it is okay to cite books that are currently under copyright. I understand that "chronic harm" and "subtle effects" do not sit well together with most people, but their specific scientific context matters. A drug can cause chronic physical harm and have subtle effects at the same time. Let me explain: chronic physical harm as opposed to acute physical harm (like overdose and death) means that the physical effects can show up from chronic use, e.g. there is more axonal death in serotonernergic neurons of the orbitofrontal cortex through repeated administration of MDMA to laboratory animals and less regeneration after withdrawal of the drug. Now the behavioral effects (not the physical effects) are subtle, an untrained eye will not notice a difference in behavior in these laboratory animals and I am not aware of any study that has investigated the behavioral changes in these animals after prolonged withdrawal. Likewise in humans, it is reasonable to assume there will be chronic physical harm (axonal death), but we know that the behavioral effects in humans are subtle and only obvious to the undiscerning eye in the most extreme cases of MDMA abuse. Nevertheless human users underperform non-users in the subtle tasks used to draw out these behavioral differences such as memory deficits and impulsivity (I cited those in the article). So there exists both chronic physical harm and subtle behavioral effects arising from MDMA. Now what does this mean for MDMA user 20 years from now? The data is only suggestive, so we have to say that the long-term effects in humans are "unknown". Your data citing the widespread use of MDMA without the widespread physical and mental health effects is off base for two reasons: 1) in principle this is not how public health studies are done, you have to control for covariates, 2) the effects of MDMA in all but the most extreme cases do not appear to cause much more than memory impairment and impulsivivity. A raver is much more likely to visit an otolaryngologist for hearing loss than for these subtle effects. We probably both agree that decision makers whether public policy makers, doctors, or users need a clear picture of the risks and potential risks and what evidence there is for this just as they should also know of the benefits and potential benefits. I am not sure what our disagreement is about but I think it is one of emphasis, is relegating this information to the safety and risks sections not enough? In my opinion if you look at the article before I made my entry, the safety and risks section served the purpose of minimizing the research that suggests that even in moderation MDMA may long-lasting effects. Many decision makers would only want to favor a drug in which there are clear and present benefits that outweigh all the risks and uncertainties (unknowns). We both (and Simishag) obviously feel like devoting some of our time towards this article so let's come to some agreement about what the risk and safety section should look like. We might want to break down harm into categories like the recent UK report by Nutt, D. and King, LA and Saulsbury, W. and Blakemore, C. where they have 3 categories of Harm: Physical Harm, Dependency, and Social Harm, each of which have subcatagories, Acute physical harm, chronic physical harm, psychological dependency,physical dependency, intoxication, health care costs, etc... What do you think?

jben78wi 12:27, 22 July 2007 (CST)

I've archived the old discussions and I'm starting a new section for this. The first thing I want to note is that these discussions usually break down along the lines of politics, opinions on the drug war, debates over the perceived emphasis or de-emphasis of this study or that one, including incredibly detailed analyses of why this study or that one belongs or doesn't... Honestly, it's getting old. If you need to get some sleep, read the archived talk pages and see how many times these arguments have been rehashed. Let's all try to assume good faith.

Second, I think we all need to step back for a moment and refocus. This article is fairly long already, although not as long as it once was. It is likely to be the first place a reader looks for information on MDMA, and it needs to cover a wide range of topics. We simply cannot include every single study or every single health risk in this particular article. To do so would unfairly reduce our treatment of: MDMA's history, supply, legal status, importance in the rave subculture, etc. There are many ways of linking to subarticles or additional content that don't involve dumping it all right here.

In response to User:jben78wi on citing sources: Yes, peer-reviewed sources are acceptable regardless of whether they are accessible online. However, it is the responsibility of the editor to cite sources appropriately, and more importantly, to avoid paraphrasing sources unnecessarily. Most of us are not qualified to paraphrase highly technical sources such as the ones used here; this is why the source usually includes an abstract. You have written an incredibly detailed response above on various studies, but how do we know you're representing the sources accurately? It is far more appropriate to quote the source or its abstract, and to let the reader draw their own conclusions. The editor's responsibility in this regard is enhanced when the source itself is not easily available to the average reader. Readers do not necessarily have access to university libraries, nor should they be expected to track down all of the academic sources listed here, nor should they be expected to understand the fine points of every academic study. There is a fine line between providing accurate, concise, encyclopedic summaries, and overwhelming the reader with information. Simishag 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me why anyone still advances this "I don't have access to the research articles" red herring. The MAPS database is free to all with an internet connection and has a VERY good collection of the relevant research articles.Blackrose10 08:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was not freely available (except as an abstract), so I don't see how it's a "red herring". In any case, I think you missed the broader point, which is that editors need to be careful about paraphrasing sources. Simishag 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current "Health Risks" section focuses too much on long-term unclear risks, and IMHO, constitutes original research, in that it synthesizes the results of a number of sources into new conclusions. If nothing else, the section should be reordered to put the short term risks first. There are well-known, potentially fatal interactions between common MAOI drugs and MDMA; why aren't these noted first? Simishag 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small problem with the part that says that the health risks are ranked "lower than even alcohol". It is insinuating that alcohol is the safest drug, with the lowest risk. Not only is this not impartial, it is flat out untrue. heatsketch, 0804, August 9th

I would presume the only "insinuation" is to compare an widely illegal drug with a widely legal one. Which bit exactly do you think is "untrue"? Nick Cooper 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Simishag. I also agree with your earlier point. Perhaps there should be a section for known risks and a section for potential/speculative risks... Jben78wi 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would using dimethylaminium instead of methylamine make Methylene-dioxy-dimethyl-amphetaminium andif so would it be more potent than MDMA?

Nope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.117.188 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From "Purity" section:

Recent surveys of seized Ecstasy pills indicate that purity levels are generally high, and that adulterants are rare.

The "Health Risks" section includes the following:

The MDMA content of Ecstasy tablets varies widely. They usually contain other substances

These are in direct contradiction of each other. Only the first is sourced. Perhaps the second should be deleted. drone5 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree. High purity levels doesn't mean 100 percent purity.

Rbuttigi 03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean, i guessPhil Ian Manning 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information from EcstasyData.org which indicates results consistent with the latter category, and have offered a compromise as to what the truth about adulteration may be, lying somewhere in between the two extremes.

24.59.244.71 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be made? it would be related to MDMA the same way 4-MTA is to PMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.0.177 (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the introduction, and right before the table of contents, you may notice that the word "JEWS" is written. It does not appear there when editing the page. I find it might be offending and sould not be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.131.205 (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the meaning of PMID in the reference: "Roland W. Freudenmann, Florian Öxler, Sabine Bernschneider-Reif (2006). The origin of MDMA (ecstasy) revisited: the true story reconstructed from the original documents. Addiction 101, 1241–1245. PMID". Is some PMID number missing? Ulner 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After initially expanding greatly on the topic of tablets sold as ecstasy being adulterated with or actually being PMA, I was considering that I may have written information which I had not confirmed, that being that there is no reagent that produces a positive test result in the presence of PMA. After checking the pill testing page on Wikipedia itself, I realized that I had been misled into believing that no reagent did this because none of the ones which were available at dancesafe.org did [2]. However, there are clearly two other reagents which Dancesafe does not provide which can screen for this chemical.

I deleted the aforementioned information in addition to other content which I had derived based on my initially faulty data. I also reorganized the remaining content that I had written in a more logical and concise order. These revisions have been repeatedly undone by various persons, the first claiming "tortuous (and somewhat inaccurate) nitpicking".

On the contrary, the most recent version of my contribution is in fact accurate to the best of my knowledge, and certainly more accurate than my initial work under this heading. The so-called nit-picking simply is no one's place to undo. Any reorganization I have decided upon is done with the intent that users who are unfamiliar with general ecstasy subject matter are not discouraged to educate themselves by disorganized information.

Apparently, my final edit remains at this time, as I hope it will continue to.

24.59.244.71 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about discouraging users is laughable considering that you have added an enormous amount of content, mostly in the form of novel theories. What remains after I eliminated your obvious conjecture and synthesis is highly specific and properly belongs in the article on the health effects of MDMA. Please try to limit the amount of scientific data related to health issues in this article. We do not need to know about every single MDMA study in this article. Simishag (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on smoking I'm having trouble with.

Many ecstasy users smoke cigarettes in combination with the former drug in order to enhance certain desired effects.

This could use a citation.

Based on the pre-existing knowledge that dopamine plays the most significant role in MDMA neurotoxicity, smoking will aid neurotoxicity in that nicotine stimulates the release of dopamine in addition to certain ingredients in cigarettes other than nicotine inhibiting MAO (see nicotine), thereby preventing the breakdown of dopamine which has been shown to be toxic to serotonin cells by itself.

This is speculation, as are the two sentences following it. I can find no supporting studies on nicotine/MDMA in the literature. If the contributor who wrote this paragraph can rewrite and support it, or someone else can, great. If not I would suggest that it should be removed. In the meantime I'll have a more through look through the literature for supporting evidence.

BertieB (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this blocks neurotoxicity of MDMA, why don't they sell the lipolate salt or make N-lipoyloxy MDMA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 10:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the rats were given intravenous ALA continuously, something you couldn't expect a person to sit through on MDMA. The amount needed to block toxicity in humans completely is probably extremely high, especially considering the process lasts about 6 hours. I also believe both ecstasy manufacturers and health food stores alike take no time to consider the implications of their product on the mental health of the weekend raver, which is to say nothing of the inherent recklessness of so many ravers themselves.

24.59.244.71 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the neurotoxicity stuff to a separate article. The current organization places too much weight on the topic when viewed in the overall context of this article. We can leave a paragraph or two here but no more than that. Simishag (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am loving how so little time passes before my additions are removed by this same person.

This latest crap, "undue weight; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", absolutely kills me, which is to say nothing of the fact that this could be applied to about a thousand other items on this page alone; cute little sayings in logic don't go very far in a field of research which is still very young and conflicted, you wouldn't be able to put most of this on wikipedia, so best to leave them at home.

Interestingly enough, the citations following the bit on heroin tell a clear-cut story. One source you didn't even realize at one point was lab-testing results, but you instead referred to it as an "online survey". Nothing I wrote was out of the realm of what is well-known and verifiable. One pill containing a small amount of heroin out of over 1500 over an extended period is really pretty solid, added to the fact that other labs couldn't find a single pill with heroin at all.

Basically, ecstasy being spiked with heroin to get people addicted is one of the oldest and most commonly-held myths about MDMA. I've heard it claimed personally and there are numerous sources of information online that address this issue. They basically say the exact same thing: ecstasy never has heroin in it, which based on some findings is correct. This statement is made more accurate when "never" is replaced with "extremely rarely" in light of this single exception which I have found.

But google "ecstasy laced with heroin" and you'll invariably come across websites claiming the same old stuff: either that it never happens, is very unlikely, drug control office articles which discuss users seeking to buy such pills, or observations by users about the effects of a tablet taken when no test has been done for heroin. Should I take this time to mention the reported "stoning" feeling that MDE often produces, or that pills are more frequently laced with ketamine which has a reasonably-high oral bioavailability as opposed to heroin?

Perhaps there are more exceptions to the one heroin pill, in fact I would bet on it, but the numbers are clear: people aren't wasting huge amounts of money cutting MDMA with heroin and so you're unlikely to find a pill with any notably quantity in it, let alone an amount that would affect you, let alone one that would get you "addicted" to heroin. The economics and practicality of such a practice would be totally inconceivable, as they would be with cocaine.

Of course, posting such things constitutes original research, at least previously because I had not yet taken the time to retrieve the appropriate sources. The whole heroin-cocaine bit was deleted because I hadn't cited sources, erowid or otherwise. Now I do and apparently, it still isn't good stew to tell the public they probably aren't buying heroin when they buy ex. under the heading "well what if tomorrow we found 100 different brands of pills containing ecstasy, then what?". I don't see it happening, to me that is conjecture.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence to the degree I mentioned ("almost never") based on the duration and consistency of the research, hence I was not dwelling on the "total absence" which seems to be the basis of this one edit. When you have millions of doses of ecstasy taken weekly around the world, huge shipments of pills being uncovered, hundreds of brands seized and analyzed by labs around the world and basically no heroin is found, it's pretty clear what to say when people inquire on this topic: "probably not".

Or via the other logic, this monologue wouldn't constitute anything unusual: "Well, Mr. Simishag, I know you say you've felt fine since our last visit, and although all the tests and scans came back clean, we feel it's best that we went ahead and shaved your head right now and got you prepped for neurosurgery. Why you ask? Well because we think that, to be honest, there is probably a tumor in your brain somewhere and we really ought to find it before it gets out of control because after all, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We wouldn't want to put too much weight on just feeling healthy now would we? It just wouldn't make sense. Well we'll probably have to remove your entire skull in order to be certain you're not about to become very ill. I think I should take this time to mention that you'll probably be left with some scarring, bald spots, and possibly an odd-shaped skull in this case in addition to the results of any complications which may occur which have high incidence in this type of surgery. Any questions?"

Of course back in reality we realize that the basis of all of human knowledge and decision-making are not the things which we hold to be invariably certain, but the data we collect and study and the ability we have to make judgments. I think I recall Socrates saying something to the effect that "a wise man knows his own ignorance but searches for the truth". Of course Socrates had his own problems when he would argue but this certainly is not one of them, certain of course based upon my own ability to reason with my ignorant mind.

But anyway, I think what I said is what I posted, I think that's what was removed. Not edited, not improved, not researched by the editor himself, but ripped out completely by the same person who as best as I can remember has made completely unverified claims on this subject himself. If only Oprah had said it it would be fine.

No, I think I'll leave all of this alone now, I obviously don't know what I'm doing or what I'm talking about nearly as well as I previously thought. I've put plenty of time into the MDMA page, to say nothing of the length of this response. "Laughable" I am, your great respect notwithstanding.

Every power trip breeds a power crash

When Johny thinks of his philosophy merit badge

24.59.244.71 (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An impressive rant. I deleted your content because I thought it was poorly written and overstated the case. "Rumors ... are almost never verified" is poor prose and, ironically enough, unverifiable. "Some labs ... have not come across a single pill" is almost certainly true (given enough labs) but also meaningless; your phrasing is essentially a negative proof. You present the statistics far too strongly, as if they are unimpeachable, and in any case it's too much info for this article. We've already established that pills are not always pure and we've indicated some of the common substances that might be found; it's not necessary to get into statistics from pill test services or rumors of heroin or rat poison or whatever. Simishag (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] has some additional information which might be of interest, and also contradicts some claims in the History section. This is an advocacy site, and not necessarily reliable on its own, but it often cites other sources which could be checked. -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this section of the article, we are told that "the Greater London Authority highlighted regional variations [in the price of MDMA]" and that "the average street price per pill in five selected cities was..."

And then there is a list of 7 -not 5- cities, the last two -in fact- with estimates, not averages, of the price per pill. "2-3" does not constitute an average. 2.5 would be the average between 2 and 3. And average is always, ALWAYS an exact figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.97.142 (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the text back to the "prices" given in the actual GLA report, and added an in-page warning against making any additions/amendments. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

81.179.97.142, you are now a recognised grammer obsessed wanker.Phil Ian Manning (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prices do seem pretty high to me - Maybe I just have good connections or something, but I have never seen E go for more than $5 a pill around here (Southern Ontario, Canada). I've heard that MDMA/Ecstasy use is pretty rampant in England, so I'm surprised the prices aren't even lower.... I know that "official" sources, news media, government reports etc. have a tendancy to inflate the price of drugs - So I fear this might be hard to find sources for.... KxWaal 00:01 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is always going to be rather a fuzzy area, although I would suggest that in the UK at least, while government and municipal sources usually "price high," the news media has a tendency to "price low" - pills being reported as being "as cheap as sweets/candy" being a popular "angle". The specific prices quoted are as much illustrative of the historical downward pattern, as a reflection of what the situation is "now." The GLA report is useful because it shows how stark regional variations can be, although explaining those variations is always going to be akin to a branch of alchemy. The decreasing order of London, Manchester, Nottingham & Torquay match exactly their decreasing population sizes and economic profile - effectively, prices increase in proportion to affluence, as with most consumer goods and services. Bristol as such an extreme stand-out may be due to a number of other factors. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

even if Annecdotally, $5 (Canadian or US) is a few pennies either side of £2.50,

This section requires significant revision, as little is cited. Reference 10, which discusses the mechanism, links to a website (dancesafe.org) that does not cite its sources further. Given the speculative nature of this material, it should be removed. Wrfrancis (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC) This review discusses the background of some of the theories: http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/3/463[reply]

I've removed this, as it doesn't actually tell us abou anything other than what was submitted to testing service. As the disclaimer from the site itself states:

"Please note that the data from the EcstasyData testing project is not necessarily representative of what is available in the underground markets. Most tablets were voluntarily submitted by harm reduction workers or individuals and the data will naturally have unknowable sampling biases. These statistics are provided as an overview of the data for this project and not a generalization about percentages of ecstasy available in any given market."

In essence, it neither claims nor can be presented as a reflection of what is actually "out there". Nick Cooper (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that when you use search term "estacy" it brings you to this article, which is somewhat misleading as estacy is a combination of primarily MDMA and methamphetamine, and possibly a variety of other substances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShatBrickner (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not misleading because - in most of the world - "Ecstasy" is categorically not "a combination of primarily MDMA and methamphetamine". For more than 20 years "Ecstasy" has meant primarily MDMA (or, rarely, MDA, MDEA or MBDB), with occasional adulterants or substitutions; methamphetamine as the latter has only appeared in the last few years in certain jurisdictions (principly the United States), but rarely or not at all in others. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed "Ecstacy" is the nickname given to MDMA due to the ecstatic experiences most people experience on MDMA, though some people name any pill which is sold as Ecstacy, no matter what it contains, even if it doesn't contain any MDMA at all, Ecstacy or Ecstacy pills. That assumption is incorrect as Ecstacy is the name reserved for MDMA. Also, only in a handful of countries in the world is methamphetamine added as an adulterant to pills sold as Ecstacy, these are the countries in which methamphetamine is available on itself, but in most countries, only amphetamine sulphate is available, predominantly Europe. In the Netherlands, where the largest part of the worlds supply of MDMA and Ecstacy pills are made, methamphetamine is unknown, and as such, no Dutch pills yet to date contained methamphetamine. In many countries though, MDMA in any form is pretty rare for global standards, and because of the high demand, a whole plethora of pills are available on the market containing all sorts of other substances designed to mimic MDMA and/or to boost profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.148.128 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendence should link to Transcendence (religion) should it not? Tkgd2007 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several days ago, I've editted the purity section and added a section about the testing of pills in the Netherlands. I've posted the same section several times before in the past, and each time it was deleted for no reason. I've reposted it again, and ask anyone who wants to discuss edit my section, to first discuss it before making any changes. Because the article is regarding testing of pills in the Netherlands, it's very difficult for me to find any articles written in English to back up my claims, but I'll do my best to try and find them, and if I find any, to add them to the article as referrence. --Psych0-007 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated this, as the information under it is clearly restricted to that country and that country alone. Ideally we should have - properly cited - similar material for other countries to give a more global picture, hence I've added an expansion tag. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the "contentious" sentence to:

Today, however, drug prohibitionists and critics within the medical community now hold that based on a body of recent research, MDMA may lead to neurotoxic damage of the central nervous system, and that due to this and other risks, its use is inherently unsafe.

from:

Prohibitionists and other critics of the drug, however, hold that MDMA may lead to neurotoxic damage of the central nervous system, and that for this and other reasons, its' use is inherently unsafe.

It seems that the implication with which Nick Cooper was concerned is much less pronounced with this phrasing, but I am still having some trouble finding a way to summarize the opposition elegantly in this case. If the current version still presents a problem, suggestions would be nice, as I feel the introduction has been absent of this viewpoint, and therefor less than neutral, for far too long.

Kst447 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though the main article has experienced repeated vandalism from some who I assume are a number of different individuals. I have requested the page be semi-protected in the hopes of largely addressing this problem.

Kst447 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section includes the statement:

"In severe cases, however, the possibility for recovery of cognitive functions may be much more limited."

The citation, however, is to a piece on the infamous "man who took 40,000 ecstasy pills in nine years". At an average of more than 12 pills per day, with an actual claimed high of 25 per day for four years. This is pretty much off any reasonable scale of definition of "severe", regardless of how certain parties were prepared to use him to demonstrate whatever they wanted to demonstrate. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see where you're going with this. You're suggesting a replacement with a reference to a study or studies which would demonstrate, say, severe deficits in memory or on cognitive testing beyond the normal limits in those who have used to excess? Kst447 (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "suggesting" anything other than that by any degree of objectivity, the aforementioned case is too extreme to be a useful illustration of anything other than itself. If it was a case of someone who drank 40,000 double-vodkas over a period of nine years, we wouldn't regard it as demonstrating anything particularly useful about alcohol use in general. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quick reference box on the right that begins with "Recreational use" seems somewhat unnecessary now as practically all of the information is repeated elsewhere on the page. Updating any of that information also means having to make sure two spots on the page are perfectly consistent and choosing which bits of information to leave out as not everything that would be appropriate for the box can fit. It also clutters up that part of the page somewhat and has caused a few format mishaps while editing in the past, such as causing the Edit hyperlinks to move to strange, barely-visible places, something I can't explain but would like to forget about.

Input on deletion of the box?

Kst447 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a slang word for this drug is "love drug". I looked, but I couldn't see this mentioned in the article anywhere. Could it be added in, if it isn't yet? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "love drug" appears under the history section as a term from the 60's.

It has actually been phased out for quite some time now, though, and I've never heard it used commonly.

Kst447 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I often listen to the Victorian radio station 1031 Jack FM, and on there they have a commercial in which two kids are discussing slang words for drugs. The first asks what "grain" is, and is told that it's marijuanna. They ask what "jib (or is it spelt "jibb"?)" is, and are told that it's meth. They then ask what "love drug" is, and are told it's Ecstasy. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that slang varies geographically and also in time, and just about the only terms that have been consistent Have been the "abbreviations" based on the word "ecstasy", which are still on the page. In the past there was a list of slang terms, but many were poorly sourced to a degree that it was possible that some were not genuine, so it was decided to remove the lot. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned the overall POV, but particularly about the first paragraphs, as they should provide a brief balanced introduction the topic.

Currently it reads:

The drug is well known for its tendency to produce feelings of overwhelming euphoria, a strong sense of intimacy with others, diminished feelings of fear and anxiety, and pronounced overall civility, and is commonly associated with the rave culture and its related genres of music. Due to its unique empathogenic effect profile, MDMA has also been used in clinical settings to aid in the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and in marriage counseling amongst other things. Although the therapeutic value of MDMA has not yet been established, MDMA psychotherapy research is once again being conducted.

The problems I have with this are (1) effects are dose dependent, so adjectives like 'overwhelming' and 'strong' seem inaccurate -- at doses like 1.0 mg/kg it is not overwhelming; (2) it claims MDMA has a 'unique' effect even though no published studies have measured its allegedly unique aspects (and no studies compare it to psychedelics like 2CB or to methamphetamine in people in a double-blind manner); (3) it mentions clinical use for PTSD as if therapy of people with PTSD had been done in the past (MDMA therapy had been conducted in people who had psychological problems after some trauma but I do not believe they had been formally diagnosed with PTSD, which is a a relatively recently recognized disorder); and overall (4) it discusses only clinical psychotherapy research even though there are no published properly controlled psychotherapy studies and more than a dozen published studies on the basic effects of MDMA in people.

Today, however, drug prohibitionists and critics within the medical research community [2][3][4] express concern that based on a body of recent research, MDMA may lead to neurotoxic damage of the central nervous system, the reversibility of which is yet to be fully determined, and that due to this and other risks, its use is believed to be inherently unsafe. Despite an overall lack of scientific consensus on the drug's dangers, MDMA has been and continues to be criminalized in most countries, and its possession, manufacture, or sale may result in criminal prosecution.

Here, I think the phrase "drug prohibitionists and critics" is somewhat derogatory and not NPOV. While there may be some who fit that label, many other reasonable scientists believe the drug is neurotoxic or dangerous. For example, David Nichols, one of the great living psychedelic researchers --a man who cowrote with Sasha Shulgin the first report on the effects of MDMA in people-- has extensively studied MDMA neurotoxicity. Thus, the phrase distorts the controversy by making it seem like it is drug warriors vs. truth tellers. And I think it is mistaken to remove references to Ricaurte's work since he, along with Andy Parrott are the ideal examples of "critics within the medical research community". I tried to change the phrase from "drug prohibitionists and critics within the medical research community" to "Many involved in research, medicine, and drug policy" and was tagged that "many" was a 'weasel word', as if there was not whole sections of this very article (and the related superior 'MDMA in the body' one) on the neurotoxicity controversy. Does the article itself not illustrate that many people are concerned about the safety of MDMA?

I think the phrase 'Despite an overall lack of scientific consensus on the drug's dangers' is also misguided. Drug regulation in general is not based on consensus, but seeks to err on the side of caution in the face of uncertainty. One may disagree with whether MDMA is dangerous and may think that politics are influencing policy, but there's no use in appealing to a lack of consensus. When has there ever been consensus about policy?

I am writing this because I have made edits to fix these concerns I've had, but they have been reverted. I know that Kst447 and other users want what is best for wikipedia and are trying to convey the truth, but some edits are going well beyond what is established scientifically. For example, newspaper articles about an unfinished clinical trial with the select patients who want to appear in the articles are simply no substitute for peer-review and statistics. The following text is just shameful:

An ongoing study by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies is evaluating the efficacy of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for treating those diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. Some of the criteria for the study are that the patients had to have had the disorder for a number of years and tried other treatments without success. In a newspaper interview, the researchers, report that some of the patients demonstrated a significant long-term reduction in the severity of the disorder after having undergone MDMA psychotherapy, something confirmed by several of the patients in the same interview. [11] However, despite the initially positive nature of the results, they are only the findings of a currently-unpublished Phase II study, and similar research by other scientists will need to be conducted in order to demonstrate the efficacy of MDMA as a psychotherapeutic agent.

Here I think the use of words like 'demonstrated', 'significant', 'Phase II', 'confirmed' inappropriately make the claims seem more reliable than can be known at the present. I see that some of the enthusiasm is being attributed to researchers via an indirect quote. But, still, how do we really know the 'findings' are 'positive' -- it's a frigging newspaper article! Do you also believe all the articles about MDMA neurotoxicity? I didn't think so. Studies don't have 'findings' or 'results' until they are complete and the researchers present in public the statistical results from all the participants. This is usually done in a peer-reviewed journal because non-specialists often lack the expertise to evaluate complex studies. For example, if the researchers only present results from people who complete the study and many people dropped out before completing due to drug side effects, then the results might be invalid unless you statistically correct for dropouts. I don't think Mithoefer will do anything shady, I am just illustrating that these are subtle technical matters that can't be evaluated based on newpaper articles without appropriate NPOV caveats about statistics and chance fluctuations in symptoms. I attempted to add such cautions, but they were replaced with the final sentence in the above quote which adds even more statements like 'positive ... results' and 'findings'.

This was a good entry about 2 years ago, but no longer.

--67.101.96.107 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was reverting some of your edits but just noticed your entry in the discussion page.

First off, I harbor no hostility towards your contributions, and I appreciate your leaked-civility towards myself and others in this matter, but I think you may be overstating the case in some respects.

I will try and respond to the issues you are having one by one, firstly directing my responses to your "1-4" paragraph:

- Overall, I rewrote this paragraph with the intent of listing much more relevant information than was already present. I have tried to summarize the commonly-known aspects of the drug and its experience as well as to give weight to the main criticisms without implying anything undue.

1) If effects are dose dependent, then simply adding "at recreational doses" would be acceptable I believe. I don't believe technical information such as mg/kg is appropriate to the article, but I acknowledge that the peak experience can't be attained with lower doses in most. The word "overwhelming" was used because that is precisely the subjective experience of a recreational dose, something which I don't believe is under dispute, as I have both experienced this, discussed the experience with others, and read individual reports. I understand that MDMA may not produce such wonderful effects in all users, hence the word "tendency." Although I can't find it now, I believe very commonly-known information does not need to be cited and can be written this way. "Overwhelming" was the word I chose because the peak MDMA experience is all-consuming without recourse until it is over. I can hardly imagine someone, even with the most disciplined mind, who could ignore or escape its effects. I mean to say that I am trying to accurately describe the experience of most, but not trying to romanticize it, which I think may be one of your overall concerns.

2) The effects of MDMA are basically unique, as described by Shulgin and almost everyone who has taken it for the first time. Is this hardcorely-scientific? No, that the MDMA experience can be replicated elsewhere has been made and toppled time and again, when 2C-B was introduced as a "substitute", with the BZP/TFMPP combination, with methylone, MDA, MDEA etc. The effects of all of these have usually been reported to be quite distinct from, despite being similar to, those of MDMA, and decrying accounts of the MDMA experience as non-scientific and arguing that as a basis for removal of some information seems quite baby-bathwater-like.

3) This is an area of lesser-knowledge for myself, and briefly said I'd appreciate you taking this part in hand as I am not extraordinarily sharp in this historical sense.

4) I'm not sure what the significance is of "more than a dozen published studies on the basic effects of MDMA in people." It would be improper to list all the basic effects of MDMA in people in this section, and is already done elsewhere on the page. I disagree that the drug's potential as a psychotherapeutic agent is being given undue weight here, as I believe that it has never been stated that the drug has been established as a legitimate treatment, but rather consistently that its usefulness is being evaluated.

Moving on to the next paragraph of criticism:

- If you believe a rewording is due, then by all means, eliminate any hint of "drug warriors vs. truth tellers." Again, I have contributed behind the premise that much of the MDMA research that has been done has not been inconclusive or has been misquoted or wildly over-emphasized in the media.

- In regards to Ricaurte, I would insist that other critics/whateveryou'drefertothemas be cited and that he be left out as a legitimate source. There is, as you know, an entire page devoted to 2 studies and the retraction of 1 at Johns-Hopkins which he conducted with as I understand it, questionable methodology, and I believe the integrity of the page would be best served with references which have not been attributed with such discreditation.

- I removed the Andy Parrot reference because I do not believe that any single scientist should be listed in the introduction or anywhere else unless it is amongst several others, as this presents a clear sense of bias and sort of a career-bolstering sentence present in the article, regardless of consensus or evidence on a topic, with of course the exception of the Ricaurte issues. Citing research literature is one thing, listing specific scientists who hold certain viewpoints over others is another.

- The reason for the adding of the sentence that begins with "Many" is pursuant to the understanding that many of those who utilize Wikipedia in general may not have time or will not be interested in reading a detailed section on Neurotoxicity or anything else. The introduction is intended to summarize the significant points briefly, as I believe it does. Any weasel words added by myself or others should be taken care of as the community sees fit, but just because the article demonstrates that many overall are concerned about the health effects of MDMA consumption does not mean that the average internet user will spend the time reading large portions of the article in order to determine this, i.e. the weasel word issue has cropped up.

- The sentence "Drug regulation in general is not based on consensus, but seeks to err on the side of caution in the face of uncertainty" is generally not correct, in keeping with the nature of drug prohibition, ignores much of the historical context for its existence in the first place, and is possibly quite telling of some of your possible motivations in editing this page. Drug prohibition in the U.S. began in the context of the Opium trade, and was perpetrated via blatant lies, misrepresentations, scare-tactics, and other unscientific methods of the like, all of which continues today. MDMA is not "regulated," it is utterly prohibited and it has taken 2 decades for research to even be allowed on it again in the U.S. Such policy has nothing to do with erring on the side of caution, but rather controlling scientific progress, information, and most of all behavior, and is not nor has it ever been very effective. Drug prohibition has resulted in such things as the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, racial profiling, loss of civil rights, and so-on. Your characterization of prohibitionists or medical professionals as wanting to accomplish nothing but the protection of the public is ironic, as evidenced by (as an easy example) the government-funded Ricaurte studies and the fact that most of us do not escape the reverberating wrath of the idea that "drugs are bad," as evidenced in the average person's overall ignorance of drug issues as well as the atmosphere of relevant scientific research. Perhaps this could be an argument over morality and what people should be allowed to put in their bodies etc, but I think I've made my point how I wanted.

Moving on to the next paragraph of criticism that follows up the allegation of being "shameful":

- I think in general, you are overreacting to the wording of the sentence because in your view, it should be blatantly stated that so far, there is no published research that can begin to make conclusions on this topic, and that because the wording is not so forceful, the opposite is still continually-implied. I have bracketed the term "Phase-II" so that it links to the Wiki page on clinical trials, so that anyone who may not understand what this means may look it up quickly. Assuredly as well, when the results of the study are published, the information will be inserted swiftly and appropriately as best I or another contributor can.

Finally, the idea that this was a "good article 2 years ago," well, maybe you should have shown up sooner and undone all the mistakes. I am not going to complain about how offended I am or anything, but I will say that when I first began editing this page before I registered last year, it was very poorly-written, disorganized, and many sections that you see now were completely non-existent. I along with many others have basically endevoured to expand the range of information on this page. I have not conducted any studies, participated in them, but am simply doing things the Wikiway and try to turn this page into a better information resource.

Looking forward to establishing consensus,

Kst447 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. as my laptop battery is dying, I have composed this response as quickly as possible. If anything here appears flatly-nonsensical, please be patient and allow for some fixation, as I will return to discuss this further.

Here are some responses:

:1) If effects are dose dependent, then simply adding "at recreational doses" would be acceptable I believe. I don't believe technical information such as mg/kg is appropriate to the article, but I acknowledge that the peak experience can't be attained with lower doses in most. The word "overwhelming" was used because that is precisely the subjective experience of a recreational dose, something which I don't believe is under dispute, as I have both experienced this, discussed the experience with others, and read individual reports...

Even if we mentioned 'at recreational doses', I still think 'overwhelming' and other superlative/intensifier adjectives are problematic partly because including these adjectives seems to imply that people who aren't overwhelmed haven't gotten the typical effects or used enough of a dose. I see no evidence that 'overwhelming' experiences usually happen in clinical studies with 100 to 125 mg doses. Implying people should expect to be overwhelmed becomes a potential health issue: if people are seeking particularly intense effects, they will need to escalate dose over time. Perhaps less compellingly, I also am concerned that words like 'overwhelming' border on being endorsements.

:2) The effects of MDMA are basically unique, as described by Shulgin and almost everyone who has taken it for the first time. Is this hardcorely-scientific? No, that the MDMA experience can be replicated elsewhere has been made and toppled time and again, when 2C-B was introduced as a "substitute", with the BZP/TFMPP combination, with methylone, MDA, MDEA etc. The effects of all of these have usually been reported to be quite distinct from, despite being similar to, those of MDMA, and decrying accounts of the MDMA experience as non-scientific and arguing that as a basis for removal of some information seems quite baby-bathwater-like.

I didn't argue for removal of information. I propose that 'unique' be replaced by 'unusual'. Upon further reflection, I think 'unique' is not NPOV (it is not established and possibly not establishable).

In some sense MDMA is certainly unique, but every drug is at least a little different from every other drug and unique in one way or another. Every merlot is different from every other merlot. I see no way, short of establishing a unique mechanism of action, of showing that MDMA is "more unique" than MDA or MDEA. It is likely that blinded clinical comparisons would determine that the drugs have partly overlapping effects along stimulant, visionary, entactogen, and cognitive lines. A possibility is that MDMA has a unique cluster of effects, but no unique effects. I proposed we (1) either quote Sasha or Nichols or someone for the claim of uniqueness and don't endorse it in the intro or (2) say that it has "a unique cluster of effects partly overlapping with drugs like MDA, MEA, and other stimulants and psychedelics" or (3) we settle for 'unusual' which is clearly indisputable or (4) say that 'users often say it is unique'. Unless it is carefully explained how it is more 'unique' than MDA or MDEA or LSD or methamphetamine, which seems unverifiable to me, having the article say MDMA is unique is basically claiming that it is special, which is not neutral and possibly not verifiable.

As a side commment, many of the claims that MDMA is unique have a historical context: they were made just before scheduling when people were trying to argue that MDMA was not a hallucinogen and shouldn't be scheduled. If you look at the history of other psychedelic drugs, such as Sol Snyder's DOET research, similar arguments were made for other drugs under the same circumstances.

:3) This is an area of lesser-knowledge for myself, and briefly said I'd appreciate you taking this part in hand as I am not extraordinarily sharp in this historical sense.

Like I said, we should delete mention of PTSD, a technical diagnosis that requires symptoms of a certain duration, etc. The therapists who used MDMA didn't tend to diagnose anyone or keep much in the way of records (Greer being an exception). Thus, we don't know what categories of patients were used. Most seemed to have been typical individuals or couples in psychotherapy. Mentioning PTSD is incorrect and makes it seems like more is established about MDMA's usefulness in PTSD.

:4) I'm not sure what the significance is of "more than a dozen published studies on the basic effects of MDMA in people." It would be improper to list all the basic effects of MDMA in people in this section, and is already done elsewhere on the page. I disagree that the drug's potential as a psychotherapeutic agent is being given undue weight here, as I believe that it has never been stated that the drug has been established as a legitimate treatment, but rather consistently that its usefulness is being evaluated.

My concern is that psychotherapy and neurotoxicity are repeatedly mentioned (almost always positively and negatively, respectvely) throughout the article without a larger scientific context. This creates a significant non-neutral bias in the overall article. Mentioning other clinical studies makes it clear that we know something about the safety and effects of MDMA in people (it is not all unknown) and it also creates a conceptual middle ground showing there are many scientists who are not overly alarmed about neurotoxicity and also not overly starry eyed about the prospects of MDMA dramatically helping people with a real tough, currently untreatable problem like PTSD. For most scientists, these are all empirical questions for science to learn about. We shouldn't make readers think there are just two polarized views. To do so introduces a bias since people are led to think they either have to side with a discredited scientist or think MDMA is a miracle drug.

:- If you believe a rewording is due, then by all means, eliminate any hint of "drug warriors vs. truth tellers." Again, I have contributed behind the premise that much of the MDMA research that has been done has not been inconclusive or has been misquoted or wildly over-emphasized in the media.

I've done it twice and you've reverted it twice.

With all respect, if you are editing, you should take the time to evaluate and include the range of voices and not make wikipedia subject to your pro-therapy, anti-neurotoxicity, and anti-media assumptions.

:- In regards to Ricaurte, I would insist that other critics/whateveryou'drefertothemas be cited and that he be left out as a legitimate source. There is, as you know, an entire page devoted to 2 studies and the retraction of 1 at Johns-Hopkins which he conducted with as I understand it, questionable methodology, and I believe the integrity of the page would be best served with references which have not been attributed with such discreditation.

I don't believe that is a legitimate thing to do. No one is referencing the retracted articles, just other articles that represent his views. Ricaurte is a prominent critic of MDMA who should be mentioned (in context, perhaps) in an encyclopedia article on MDMA. To avoid that fact is akin to censorship.

:- I removed the Andy Parrot reference because I do not believe that any single scientist should be listed in the introduction or anywhere else unless it is amongst several others, as this presents a clear sense of bias and sort of a career-bolstering sentence present in the article, regardless of consensus or evidence on a topic, with of course the exception of the Ricaurte issues. Citing research literature is one thing, listing specific scientists who hold certain viewpoints over others is another.

OK with me to not feature him by name; I only put it in because a criticism was made that not mentioning someone specific was weasle-ing. I have no need to lionize him. But next to Ricaurte he is perhaps the second most prominent chicken little in MDMA research. If we want references to people who think MDMA is unsafe, he should be one.

:- The reason for the adding of the sentence that begins with "Many" is pursuant to the understanding that many of those who utilize Wikipedia in general may not have time or will not be interested in reading a detailed section on Neurotoxicity or anything else. The introduction is intended to summarize the significant points briefly, as I believe it does...

I do not believe it does. The sentence you seem to prefer is:

-Today, however, drug prohibitionists and critics within the medical research community [2][3][4] express concern that based on a body of recent research, MDMA may lead to neurotoxic damage of the central nervous system, the reversibility, extent and significance of which is yet to be fully determined, and that due to this and other risks, its use is believed by some to carry risks that outweigh its alleged benefits.

This is not recent research. It started in the mid 1980s. I also think this needs to be at least two sentences to separate out the fact that there is a serotonergic neurotoxicity concern from the partly independent judgement of risks and benefits. There are many other legitimate concerns that lead people to be worried about MDMA (neurocognitive impairment, acute toxicity like rare hyperthermic responses, etc.) and make risk/benefit decisions. And as stated earlier, I think 'drug prohibitionists and critics' is derogatory and not neutral. This sentence is one of many in the article that makes it seem like there are only two views on MDMA: demon or angel. Here, you imply that if the reader is at all concerned about neurotoxicity, then they must conclude the risks outweigh the benefits. This is a straw man.

:- The sentence "Drug regulation in general is not based on consensus, but seeks to err on the side of caution in the face of uncertainty" is generally not correct, in keeping with the nature of drug prohibition, ignores much of the historical context for its existence in the first place, and is possibly quite telling of some of your possible motivations in editing this page...

Your outrage about the war on drugs (while perhaps justified) is not, in my opinion, relevant to the fact that a sentence saying 'despite lack of consensus on MDMA's dangers, it is illegal' is a non sequitur. Consensus and legality are simply unrelated. Having this non sequitur sentence in the intro makes the article seem to implictly argue that MDMA should be legalized. The article should not endorse this POV.

:- I think in general, you are overreacting to the wording of the sentence because in your view, it should be blatantly stated that so far, there is no published research that can begin to make conclusions on this topic, and that because the wording is not so forceful, the opposite is still continually-implied...

I believe the wording like 'demonstrated' and 'positive' and 'confirmed' are not NPOV unless they are attached to claims that are actually positive and confirmed facts. Those words should not be used to refer to claims by researchers or select patients in a newspaper article. Call it overreacting if you want. Encyclopedias should not endorse press releases or puff piece articles. I think it is important first to describe scientific claims objectively and second to show where they are in process of acceptance by the scientific community. Your proposal that we caution 'the findings need replication' is insufficient because it suggests the claims are 'findings' and are further along in the scientific evaluation process than they are. Claims become findings by going thru peer-review and published with statistics. Right now there is nothing to replicate; there are no verifiable findings. The only thing verifiable right now is that the newspaper published a story.

As a side note, as you seem to have concluded from web articles about Ricaurte, many studies are so flawed that science learns nothing from them. Well-meaning scientists can mess up. The OCD-psilocybin study was pretty ambiguous. It may turn out that the MAPS study is like this. For example, it is a small study so it might lack statistical power to draw any conclusions. Also all of the patients are receiving MDMA, so it will be impossible to evaluate any really long term effects of MDMA treatment. Wikipedia should not reflect your personal optimism about the study.

:Finally, the idea that this was a "good article 2 years ago," well, maybe you should have shown up sooner and undone all the mistakes. I am not going to complain about how offended I am or anything, but I will say that when I first began editing this page before I registered last year, it was very poorly-written, disorganized, and many sections that you see now were completely non-existent. I along with many others have basically endevoured to expand the range of information on this page. I have not conducted any studies, participated in them, but am simply doing things the Wikiway and try to turn this page into a better information resource.

Thanks for all your hard work. I am here to help out now. A big problem seems to be that the article was split into two (or mre?) parts and then people started rewriting the parts that had been moved. --67.101.96.107 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like there is redundancy between the two entries with the Effects of MDMA on the human body being better. Could the sections in this entry be just kept empty with pointers to the other entry?? Mattbagg (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

67.101.96.107, I'm somewhat surprised at your insistence that:

"Even if we mentioned 'at recreational doses', I still think 'overwhelming' and other superlative/intensifier adjectives are problematic partly because including these adjectives seems to imply that people who aren't overwhelmed haven't gotten the typical effects or used enough of a dose. I see no evidence that 'overwhelming' experiences usually happen in clinical studies with 100 to 125 mg doses."

You seem to be denying one of the main reasons that hundreds of thousands of people take MDMA every weekend in club setting. You can't deny widespread annecdotal evidence simply because it (you claim) does not happen in (how few?) "clinical studies", presumably in a clinical setting, even one involving what would be considered a high recreational dose. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am denying anything. We are discussing these two potential phrasings: (1) I suggested saying MDMA has a "tendency to produce feelings of euphoria, a sense of intimacy with others..." vs. (2) MDMA has a "tendency to produce feelings of overwhelming euphoria, a strong sense of intimacy with others..." Because I think the adjectives only describe only higher doses, I am critical of the latter version.

If you really want to convey intensity, how about we go with adding a second sentence saying "at higher recreational doses, these effects can be overwhelming." No one is denying that MDMA can be overwhelming, it is just a question of clarifying when. It clearly overwhelming at a certain (unknown) dose that many take every weekend in clubs. But it appears it usually isn't at the lower doses that are better documented. The first ever description of MDMA in humans (by Shulgin and Nichols) was that, at 75-150 mg, it was 'easily controlled.' The question is how, when briefly summarizing MDMA effects, the potential intensity should be conveyed. I suggest that we shouldn't only say it is overwhelming and strong, either say when it is or don't mention intensity.

Do we have consensus that 'drug prohibitionists and critics within the medical community' can and should be replaced by 'Many people in science, health care, and drug policy'... And should we go on to say something like (a) many are concerned about safety and (b) some (referencing e.g. Ricaurte and Parrott) even feel the risks of single doses in clinical trials outweigh the potential benefits while (c) others (referencing e.g. two prominent people) disagree and feel it is important to learn more about MDMA's effects though human experiments?

A major thing we should be talking about, though, is either replacing sections like Mode of Action, Subjective Effects, Long-Term Effects, and Health Concerns with links to the other MDMA article or moving the other article's entries here and restricting the scope of the other article.

Happy B-Day Eve!

--67.101.96.107 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that most single pills fall precisely within that dosage range (i.e. 75-150mg), and there are plenty of annecdotal reports of users being "overwhelmed" on a single pill, or by the first of any number of pills they may take on any specific occasion. I would also suggest a mis-reading of "easily controlled"; the experience of many users seems to be that they can "hold down" or "keep a lid on" the effects of MDMA, if circumstances dictate (e.g. taking an initial dose before reaching or entering a venue, but then being delayed). Set and setting - as has been highlighted many times previously - are as important a factor as dosage. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong. If you can go pull some first time one pill experiences off erowid and show a high percent talk about being overwhelmed, then I'll concede. But also consider, how many other wikipedia entries for drugs talk about 'intense' and 'strong' effects in the intro? LSD doesn't, DMT doesn't (perhaps the prototype powerful experience), meth doesn't. Why MDMA? I'm not denying it happens, but are overwhelming and strong effects really a key defining aspect of the drug's effects that needs mention up front in the first few sentences?

--67.101.96.107 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of this, and citation footnote #13 is a far cry from anything peer reviewed. thoughts?

24.108.206.194 (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is essentially correct. The best review article is probably:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17209801

--MattBagg (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some work on making the citation style consistent throughout the article. I would do it but I don't have much time at this stage.

While I'm at it, I have seen some articles tagged with some sort of template to say that the article uses inconsistent citations and needs to be worked on. How do I insert such a template?

-Andreas Toth (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{citation style}}? WP:TC is the master list of such things. DMacks (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]