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]

NOTE THAT THE BALL AND STICK MODEL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ANY ARTICLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.22.90 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (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]

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]

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]

Although I see someone has fixed that, PMID is the pubmed ID. It is 16911722 for that article. The full article can also be found on erowid:

http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDoc1&ID=6707

I have added a link to the fulltext in the entry.

--MattBagg (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (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]

Dr. Ricaurte published findings that reported even a single dose of MDMA may put "holes in the brains" This study was cross exaimined and invalidated by a group of European scientists. In the end, Dr. Ricaurte did not notice he was administering Methamphetamine instead of MDMA to his subjects. ???Hope this gets put in or used somewhere, most people still think "holes in your brain" is fact??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.28.232 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Ecstasy users "Lose the Magic" as they continue experimenting with MDMA is fact by anyone that has done the drug in excessive amounts. I feel this is very important information that and is valuable for those who don't know. I know a few people who certainly wish they knew... Is this too subjective? Where should this go? Health Risks? Neurotoxicity? Losing the Magic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.69.174 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

||You're speaking about tolerance, which certainly belongs in the article- but yes and no to the "is this too subjective?" bit. Find a reliable, verifiable source that covers what you're speaking about, paraphrase it, source it, and we're in business.--66.229.208.133 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 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]

What makes you think that Erowid is the only valid source available to us? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick, I think this was the general sort of idea that I was trying to communicate. The anecdotal evidence for the "overwhelming euphoria" is clear and overwhelming in and of itself. I mean, you can be as scientific about it as you'd like, but would we conduct experiments to see if water does or does not quench the sensation of thirst? You don't need science to figure out everything. But let us pretend otherwise for a moment.

From Merriam-Webster:

Overwhelm -

1) To upset, overthrow

2) a. To cover over completely; submerge b. to overcome by superior force or numbers c. to overpower in thought or feeling

So pursuant to the definitions of this word, I will say these things: start a fight with someone during the peak of their MDMA high by insulting them; get them to discuss their hatred towards someone; reduce them to boredom; ask them if they wouldn't mind being touched; tell them that life isn't beautiful.

Let us examine Shulgin's own selected comments of 120mg of MDMA from PIHKAL:

(with 120 mg) I feel absolutely clean inside, and there is nothing but pure euphoria. I have never felt so great, or believed this to be possible. The cleanliness, clarity, and marvelous feeling of solid inner strength continued throughout the rest of the day, and evening, and through the next day. I am overcome by the profundity of the experience, and how much more powerful it was than previous experiences, for no apparent reason, other than a continually improving state of being. All the next day I felt like 'a citizen of the universe' rather than a citizen of the planet, completely disconnecting time and flowing easily from one activity to the next.

(with 120 mg) As the material came on I felt that I was being enveloped, and my attention had to be directed to it. I became quite fearful, and my face felt cold and ashen. I felt that I wanted to go back, but I knew there was no turning back. Then the fear started to leave me, and I could try taking little baby steps, like taking first steps after being reborn. The woodpile is so beautiful, about all the joy and beauty that I can stand. I am afraid to turn around and face the mountains, for fear they will overpower me. But I did look, and I am astounded. Everyone must get to experience a profound state like this. I feel totally peaceful. I have lived all my life to get here, and I feel I have come home. I am complete.

I feel these two entries are more consistent with my version coupled with the widespread anecdotal reporting. Do the entries for the other mentioned drugs refer to "overwhelming" euphoria? No, and they could. I think that's how Wikipedia works; anybody can add something they feel is missing. I would certainly concede DMT as "overwhelming" because the typical dosages usually are, much more so than MDMA even. My point is that MDMA simply produces a more consistent and predictable experience than the pure psychedelics and its euphoria is markedly different in character than methylphenidate, methamphetamine etc. No other drug has ever spread as fast as MDMA, not methamphetamine, marijuana, or LSD, and I completely fail to imagine that this has nothing to do with the unique nature of the drug's experience and/or the impact many claim it has had on them.

Also, one of the problems with tabulating the statistics of Erowid experiences would be the known adulteration of MDMA/the misrepresentation of "Ecstasy" as being solely or at all MDMA. I hope you will not begin to dispute that most Ecstasy users don't have a clue what they are really dropping via their little stamped colored pill. I would also claim that the adulteration of pills has increased since MDMA's scheduling and the Watch-Listing of its precursor chemicals, and that prior to this, adulteration probably did not really exist as it does today as there would be no reason for it to. In any case whatsoever, there is no way to be sure that all of these experiences are in fact due to MDMA, although thinking so would certainly be very convenient.

So perhaps, 67, you've overstated controllability as an ideal of yours?

Also, Nick, if you could, I'd like your input on more of my said faults in phrasing and what-not.

Kst447 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Erowid is not the only source, but I was attempting to give y'all an easy out since I know it is hard to find peer reviewed publications on the emotional effects of MDMA and claims about anecdotal information simply are not relevant. Yes, anyone can add stuff to wikipedia, but let me remind you and Kst447 that the goal is to only include and keep the verifiable information, which is the relevant standard here: "readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Shulgin is a pretty good published source that I can't argue with. I still fear that 'overwhelming' is confusing, misleading, and puts the wrong emphasis on the introduction. I know what you mean, but the squares won't. I think your points that MDMA (1) has more consistent effects than most psychedelics and (2) has a euphoria that is said to be different from stimulants and psychedelics are more important than including the word 'overwhelming'. If anything, let's add those points.

The claim that MDMA spread faster than methamphetamine/amphetamine seems dubious to me. I'd like to see some numbers put on that one. We are probably all to young to have any sense of meth use in its heyday in the 1950's (especially in Japan, but also the U.S. and world-wide). It was a major prescription drug and saw lots of nonmedical use.

But please let's not focus on single words when there is major work to be done. I have made a number of suggestions, I hope someone will respond to some of them. Since Kst447 agreed to changing the 'drug prohibitionists..' sentence and no one else has weighed in, I am editing it now and will try to reorganize the introduction while retaining the factual points. This will mean the references will need updating. Please add comments and suggestions.

The main thing that I think needs to be addressed is the overlap with other articles. How about reducing the scope of this article by taking out effects and health concerns, which are also covered in the effects of MDMA on the human body, and restricting this one history, uses, use patterns, synthesis, legal issues...?

I think removing all those sections just like that would be a little extreme to say the least. I'd be more interested in discussing the logistics of merging the two articles, as most other drugs don't seem to have a separate similar page. In any case, I think there will need to be a lot of consensus to do what you are proposing.

Also, just as a side note, I have continued to only partially address the discussion page as I am in the midst of a cyclically busy schedule, but I will continue to visit and write as often as I can.

If you wanted, you could take each section which you voiced concerns on and present a new version next to the current one for comparison for discussion and if there's agreement, the new versions could begin to be added to the article.

Kst447 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--69.3.233.44 (talk) 07:39, 22 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]

I dug around and found a few other mentions of monoamine transporters working in reverse. The best explanation is that since they are symporters of monoamine + Na + Cl, the driving energy for the transport is actually the Na+ gradient created by Na/K pumps. Disruption of this gradient might produce the effects that they claim to see

perhaps check these papers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17690258?dopt=Abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/5539/2465 http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/277/24/21505 http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/5/4102 Wrfrancis (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2009 (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]

This is a plea for help. I'm hoping that editors of this page might be able to check out comments on the Holotropic Breathwork page (which I've been involved in editing) and Paul Grof page (which I found by accident) regarding the approval of MDMA research. Can someone with any knowledge about these things take a look and check whether there is any to truth to the implicit allegation that Paul Grof's decision was unfairly influenced by his relationship with Stanislav Grof, such that it can either be adequately referenced or removed ? Thanks Jablett (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be true Doblin learned about MDMA at Easalen while studying with Grof (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n619/a06.html), though I don't know of evidence that Grof personally introduced him to MDMA.

It is true, of course, that Grof is regarded as an elder by some people interested in psychedelics, so he tends to get cited early in documents by those people as a gesture of respect. And, true, Mithoefer is trained in Grof's controlled breathing techniques, but Mithoefer is also a psychiatrist and emergency medicine physician. But it is not clear how important Grof is to the study. The therapy has a formal written manual for its procedures at http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/ptsd_study/treatment-manual/053005/index.html in which Grof is cited three times regarding pretty minor points. The patients are trained in "diaphragmatic breathing techniques to aid in the relaxation and self-soothing process. They are encouraged to use their awareness of the breath as a technique for staying present with experiences, especially difficult experiences from which they might otherwise attempt to distance themselves." Whether this is related to Grof's work is outside my area of expertise (he is not cited). I suspect it is not Grofian, but just standard relaxation technique. Concerning the claim that the work is "the exclusive project of believers in psychedelic mysticism", it is important to note that the outcome measures are standard for PTSD research thus, the work is relevant to the outside world and is not 'exclusive' in the most important sense, regardless of who conducts the research.

I think the key to the Paul Grof claim would be to track down the Doblin quote and ensure its accuracy. In any case, the WHO commission that Paul Grof chaired merely made a symbolic gesture that is essentially unrelated to the actual initiation of MDMA research in humans.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.243.2 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your input. That's really useful.

I've found this online source (footnote 94) for the Doblin quote, which references it to a publication called 'High Times', but I'm still not sure how accurate it is likely to be, being unfamiliar with this territory.

http://ecstasy.org/books/e4x/e4x.ap.01.html

Any comments ? Also, are editors happy for me to cut and paste this section into the talk pages of the relevant articles when this discussion is over, or is it wikipolicy to put a link to this discussion page if making edits that refer to it ?

best wishes Jablett (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added links to this discussion from the 2 talk pages in question, so that other editors know what's happening. It seems the most polite thing to do. Jablett (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've summarised my understanding of the above information on the Holotropic Breathwork talk page, and proposed that the MDMA research paragraph on that page be removed. Jablett (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious reservations about the content and tone of this section. Many of the claims made are unsourced and controversial. I removed the piece about adulturated Ecstasy being common in the UK, because that is contradicted by the "Purity" section of the article above. I am not going to remove the rest of this section at this time, and I notice that the text has already been marked up with cite-needed tags, but this section desperately needs the attention of someone well-versed in the subject and should probably be removed in a reasonable time-frame if this doesn't happen. Alereon (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there's no easy way of citing this information, though I know from personal experience that the majority of what is there is true; however, experiences from user to user and from dose to dose vary. How do you find them controversial? Gad905 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 22.18, 11 May 08[reply]

strong yes If there is anything of worth in Vernallagra, move it here. I'm not sure if that page should even exist as a redirect - it appears to be a neologism. Merenta (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the aforementioned page, I now realize that the correct thing to do is to delete Vernallagra. It has nothing of value. Merenta (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete the thing/redirect.

Kst447 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, from the article it seems to be the Japanese name for MDMA. Scientz (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section entitled "Supply" is currently unsourced, which goes against the verifiability policy. According to that policy, it is reasonable to give editors some time to produce sources, using various maintenance tags. One example of a statement needing a source is the following sentence: "MDMA powder can also be insufflated, a route which leads to a quicker onset and dissipation of more intense effects, although users claim that this method of administration can be very unpleasant." How on earth can a reader check what users claim? A {{Fact}} tag was placed here, which has repeatedly been removed by User:Scientz. I am bringing this up here because I want to know what others think. Should the {{Fact}} tag remain, until a reliable sources can be found? Should unsupported statements like these be removed altogether? Or should they remain, with no burden on editors to provide reliable sources? --BelovedFreak 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded that sentence out of a much more contentious one that someone else wrote long ago. I think it is certainly possible to determine if insufflating MDMA is painful, I think there would most likely be reports of it at the very least, and I'd assume that most of our nasal tissue responds the same to a given substance, but maybe not.

As far as the burden on editors, I think the fact tag should remain but the latter claim isn't far from reasonable and the former, regarding onset, is a common rule of substances in general. Maybe it should read "a route which leads to a quicker onset and dissipation of more intense effects than oral administration" or something similar.

In regards to the rest of the section, I do agree that citations overall are long-overdue. But upon reading through it, I don't believe that it should simply be wiped as much of the information is basically correct.

Kst447 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snorting MDMA is mentioned a fair amount on places like Erowid. Try a google search like this: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aerowid.org+insufflating+mdma&btnG=Search

A published reference, perhaps not ideal, to MDMA insufflation is this case report:

Harris R, Joseph A. Spontaneous pneumomediastinum--'ectasy': a hard pill to swallow. (2000) Aust N Z J Med. 30(3):401-3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10914764

--Mattbagg (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Recreational Use section seems to be vandalized, I don't know what previous versions there were, but that one liner sounds like a joke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.48.47 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Fixed now. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the source of an NPOV dispute previously regarding the content of the lead section. However, it seems that no one has made any comments in the section on the talk page here regarding that dispute since last month. Does anyone still feel a need for the tag to be there, or still feel there is a dispute about the content of this article? If nobody objects in several days, I plan to remove the tag from the article and continue editing it as normal. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag. If anyone has any neutrality issues with the article, feel free to raise the issue again. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is filled with weasel words making the claims of various scientific positions appear more or less valid than other ones. For example, "Many researchers" suspect that MDMA causes harm...but only "some" researchers think that the positive benefits outweigh the risks. It seems that there is no scientific consensus here with regards to any of the issues related to MDMA, and the use of ww statements might be best avoided...

Also, the ONDCP is not a source of information suitable for an encyclopedia. As one of the major ONDCP functions is anti-drug information operations (literally--if you doubt this, check the statutes that created the ONDCP) any assertions from this entity are automatically suspect. Katana0182 (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on that second paragraph?

Kst447 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I AGREE completely - I was here two years before, and nothing changed. Nick cooper has his RIGHT OPINION and we everybody else can go on to another wikipedia. Tons of informations just to mask few simple things - in first place, mdma is a dangerous drug (and it even doesn't need to be neurotoxic)! Altought many people have direct bad experiences (actually everybody who stops using it) these opinions are totally ignored. MDMA it's not new plastic fiber, people are eating it, and it changes their reality! subjective opinions, negative of course, too, are needed. I was requesting NPOV before, after I saw Nick cooper is totally biased (and very likely casual abuser of ecstasy), but nothing happened. So I'll be requesting it again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.9.70 (talk)

It can be dangerous. Is this not stated in the article? The instant you say "subjective opinions", you are asking for something that WP does not allow, so your whole premise (which sounds like "I've heard of/had lots of bad experiences with this, therefore the article needs to be angled to reflect that it is nothing but bad news") is wrong: you need WP:RS and you would need enough of it to overcome the existing depth of cited material to change the overall tone. Does your attacking other editors really help make your point, or does it just make your whole writing look like a rant? DMacks (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never feel particularly threated by "attacks" from people who hide behind IP anonymity, although I presume it's Vladimir Marcek, whose previous contradictory and baselessly assumed outbursts can be read in Archive 2 (Wow! 17 months....). It's funny, though, that back then he accused me of being biased because I was only interested in MDMA as a subject as a result of taking it, and then when I illustrated how his assumptions were wrong, he claimed that ex-users like him were in a better position to write about it. I wonder if he's made up his mind yet...?Nick Cooper (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick Cooper, of course you don't feel threatened, because I don't intended to do so (?!). And pardon me, if am not playing your "YOU ARE THE STUPID ONE" game tonight. It's you who is filtering negative facts about ecstasy behind overwhelming research reports here. If not so, how is it, that after 17 months this oh-so-objective article still doesn't link e.g. http://ecstasy-effects.com ? Will you try to accuse this rehab center stating adverse effects of mdma (grounded in praxis!), of bias again? You call it bias, when somebody says "we don't want you to be our pacient, dont try it"? I don't.

But because I should be just totally baselessly outbursting here, let me keep you reminded Nick - this is not a game, you are creating dangerously neutral view of a meth-based drug. Your stylizations like "Still, MDMA for psychotherapeutic use has its critics" is UNBELIEVABLE - I study psychology and can really tell, that LSD, MDMA, and other drugs are getting people into psychiatry department, NOT out of them.

Ecstasy really won't make holes in your brain - but it can keep you protecting your ideal on wikipedia for years... To summarize: after stopping even recreational ecstasy abuse, everybody pays the same kind of price to some extent (from anxiety to social phobia or depression). It's as simple as that - but it's not my goal to convince you, nor anybody who already knows how ecstasy tastes... Vladimir Marcek (talk)

Uh... what exactly is a "dangerously neutral view"? Simishag (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ecstasy-effects.com is a promo site for Spencer Recovery Centers, who apparently specialize in MDMA rehab. They do not appear to be a reliable source of scientific information regarding MDMA. Simishag (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They really are a rehab? Maaaaan I didn't realized... But let me ask then (third time) again - If they are making money from people which suffer from extasy use, what use can they have if they WARN people from using it? Along with your logic, they should never say truth about dangers of ecstasy, TO HAVE MORE PACIENTS. Any prevention is contraproductive for them - so if they really wanted to make more money nevermind the truth, anything they say (based on what they see everyday) must be EVEN WORSE. But I dont think so. I think they are not diminishing the effects. But definitely not overstating it. Vladimir Marcek (talk)

You've completely missed the point. They are not a SCIENTIFIC source. Where's their MDMA research published? Have they even published any research on MDMA rehab techniques? Why should we care what they have to say? Everything on their site has been published elsewhere. Simishag (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir, allow me to clarify. You have consistently chosen to single me out for criticism - in some cases ascribing to me statements, edits or views which were and are not my own - and have repeatedly ascribed my overall attitude to MDMA as being a result of use of it by myself. Seventeen months ago I pointed you in the direction of a number of Usenet postings by myself on the subject - most of pre-dating Wikipedia's very existance, let alone my being an editor here - all of which were written as a result of having read extensively about the subject, rather than having taken MDMA myself. And yet here we have you, 17 months later, immediately ascribing my motivation now to MDMA use. Overall, I consider that your approach constitutes a personal attack on myself. That I do not feel particularly threatened by it does not lessen that fact.

As Shimishag has pointed out - and as I said 17 moths ago - the site you persist in wanting this page to link to is not a reliable source. It is inherently biased because the organisation behind it makes money from providing rehab services, and it is therefore in its interest to "big-up" actual or supposed adverse effects of MDMA. In addition, the effects which the page lists are a random mixture of acute effects that it is generally recognised may occur while under the direct influence of MDMA, with others that may or may not happen in the long-term, and yet others that seem demonstrably false (e.g. "agression").

I was not the author of the line, "Still, MDMA for psychotherapeutic use has its critics," nor to I believe I have ever edited the paragraph it is part of. This is a perfect example of you falsely "blaming" me for something you don't like or agree with.

Your over-arching claim that, "everybody pays the same kind of price," is meaningless. For your information, I analyse acute healthcare data every day, because it is the job I am paid to do, and have been for over ten years. That some people end up under mental health care due to the use of a variety of drugs is not in dispute. The idea that MDMA is responsible for a significant proportion of them is demonstrably false. I live in a country in which there are at least half a million instances of MDMA use each week - 26 million a year. This has not resulted in an epidemic of psychiatric admissions, or even any general problem identified within the healthcare community. Annecdotaly, I know a number of users whose use ranges from a couple of pills once a month (or less) to a ridiculous number more than once a week, most weeks, and yet there is not apparent correlation to whether it is having an adverse effect on their life as a whole, with many of them holding down professional and highly-paid jobs without a problem. Certainly their experience seems little different from those who drink (and only drink) excessively and frequently. In addition, I know a number of ex-MDMA users who seem little affected, even to the point of one subsequently taking a different professional career path that has resulted in them becoming a millionaire. Of course, these do not represent a scientifically-monitored, statistically-weighted, or peer-reviewed sample, and yet they do not support your view that, "everyone pays".

Nobody is going to deny that MDMA can have acute adverse or even fatal effects, or detrimental long-term effects, but the issue is to what extent these effects are typical and their degree of prevalence. The number of heroin and methadone users in the UK is tiny compared to the number of MDMA users, and yet deaths attributed to the former are more than twenty times that of the latter. This reality is reflected in neither government policy, nor media attention. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your clarification Nick, and agree that I couldn't be sure about it was your line of text in the section of psychotherapy. But you know, from your benevolent opinions in your persistant discussion attending through years, it just seemed to me it really could be you. Btw still, you are leaving these nonsense there (I will change it after I'll have some more time). And it really is nonsense, because more than 99% of psychotherapuetist (so not only "some of them") would NEVER give their clients mdma. I wonder now, why is that?

I'm glad that you wanna clarify some things. You can consider me now a really good listener, because I have two questions for you. First, you state that your opinions about ecstasy are "a result of having read extensively about the subject, rather than having taken MDMA myself." So let's make this clear - have you taken this pill (about which you attend discussions for years) and if yes, what was the last time? You can write anything here. But I promise to do my best to trust you. Next thing, "analysing acute healthcare data every day" is as general as my "paing the same kind of price" - could you please specify?

Regarding mdma psychiatric / body effects - it's not the point for me in this discussion. My point is psychological adverse effects, which are rooted in psychological dependence. Which is very likely, because people nearly always continue after first use of mdma - as you prove with 500 000 of uses each WEEK. The basic subjective thing about any dependece is, it looks different then user thinks - it's not "oh my god, I'm dependent, I can not live without ecstasy". Never-ever. It's more like "It was great and I want to do it one more time". And as you have problem with alcohol much sooner, then when you consult a doctor, your life can be really changed in terms od QoL on mdma even without a diagnosis. And more than probably, it will be, after you stop regular using it (with regular using I mean even one pill a month). Vladimir Marcek (talk)

I'm not under any obligation to elaborate on my personal or professional life for your benefit. I would observe, though, that you will find instances of me expressing my views on Usenet and editing pages on Wikipedia on a far wider number of subjects beyond MDMA more frequently, which puts the latter into context as regards my interest in it.

As to your claims of "psychological dependence," your reading of the 500,000 uses per weekend is faulty, since Home Office statistics from the 2005/06 British Crime Survey show that 2,279,000 people in England and Wales had used MDMA at least once in the liftime, but only 502,000 in the previous year, and only 216,000 in the previous month. In other words, 1,772,000 had taken it at some time in their life, but not in at least the previous year, and of the of those who had taken it in the previous year, 286,000 had not taken it in the previous month. That doesn't back your claim that psycholical dependence is "very likely," otherwise the number using in the last month or even year would be a majority of the number who have ever taken it, rather than 9.5% and 22% respectively. That fact remains, however, that even these large numbers of users have not manifested themselves in terms of widespread psychiatric problems compared to other abused drugs, either legal or illegal. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDMA is not inherently threatening to human beings. Rather, the frequency of use, dose, setting, and personal genetic makeup determine harm or potential harm on an individual basis.

I'd like to take the time to bring up the sociological concept of structuration.

To understand an action, we must first understand how the social context of that action was originally created.

So, the 1980's was the hayday of "Just say no." It was also the decade which saw the birth of the rave culture, a culture which began before MDMA was criminalized. Once it was in 1985, the rave culture continued to exist amidst a mainstream culture that strongly disapproved of its very existence.

If you were a raver in 1985, and you strongly believed in the values of the rave movement, would your response to this prohibition of the core substance of your defining lifestyle be taking more or less MDMA? Would you rave more frequently or less frequently? Would you just accept that the law is the law and that the government knows what's best for you?

Basically, the nature of prohibition is such that bureaucratic constructs provide for the creation of powerful, artificial social binaries that neither represent nor diminish the reality of drug habits in a previously uninhibited society. When any drug is criminalized, both sides tend to subscribe to continually more radical modes of thought based on their previous membership within society. People who didn't take drugs become more opposed, and drug users become more dedicated, hence today it is not uncommon to see individuals ingest massive numbers of ecstasy tablets in a single night without expressed disapproval. This is due to the fact that social cohesion is generally more important to most people than immediate health concerns.

Did abuse of ecstasy occur before it was prohibited? Of course it did, but artificial social binaries tend to amplify opposite radical behaviors.

This is my own social analysis on this subject. I have used MDMA a small handful of times. The experiences were mostly indescribably fantastic. Were the comedowns difficult and even excruciating? Sometimes, yes. But you live, you learn, you minimize the problems by better planning in the future, you manage the risks better as you gain experience.

MDMA is not physically addictive, this we know. Is it psychologically addictive? It depends on the individual, but of course it can be. Ecstasy, like with most drug use, is about socializing, it's about communicating and feeling good by participating in a community. The rave culture is sort of this virtual community, in that the ideal experience of it can only be created with MDMA and that the sense of human community that is created surpasses what is normal or imaginable. But it can feel important enough that rolling can overshadow the perceived importance of consensus reality, and in the end, overtake an individual's life.

This I have observed, but in the end when a person's sober life is impacted enough, most will suddenly stop taking E in favor of their own recovery. I admit a great deal of damage can be done before this moment in time is realized.

The point I'd like to make is that if people were properly educated on these realities of MDMA before they first took it, they would probably retain more self-control and consciousness of their own psychological health. But this is not the case. Most people enter the realm of rave, rolling, whatever, with little knowledge of the drug they think they are taking or where it may lead in the long-term. Most are not aware of the existence of Erowid and other better-balanced sources of information, and after your first time taking E, when you don't really experience a comedown and your mind has basically been blown like you never even imagined, would you not reject the dogma of the educational establishment that Ex is bad and just more bad after that?

Realizing that the long-term truth lies somewhere in between extremes of good and evil wouldn't occur to most people who have just experienced exactly the opposite of what authoritative social institutions so clearly express.

MDMA itself is not dangerous. It possesses neither conscience nor will. It is mindless but it affects the mind. It is premature in reflection to say that it invariably replaces self-control with idiocy, because only humans and society can create such a problem.

Once again, no one is stopping anyone from adding legitimate information about MDMA's harmfulness to the article. I think this addresses what you (89.102.9.70) were basically saying in short-hand, but I am not sure due to significant grammar and spelling issues present in your writing.

Kst447 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, my experience with the literature out there has been that there is significant evidence to indicate that MDMA may well be neurotoxic (there's still a list of journal articles I haven't yet gotten around to introducing into the article here on WP laying around on my userpage). Given this, I don't see why material such as this can't simply be cited to support any claims given in the article, avoiding the whole issue of POV or unsourced material. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You removed the POV check tag and added the POV tag. Are you saying that you did a POV check and that there are still POV issues? If so, can you identify them? Simishag (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (from reading the template documentation) is that {{POV}} is to be used when there is an ongoing dispute regarding neutrality - in this case, that some users listed above feel the article is not NPOV, and other users, such as myself, feel that the article does not have a POV issue. I also understood that {{POV check}} was to be used for "suspected POV issues that are not disputed." That being said, my personal opinion is that the article does not include too much information regarding neurotoxicity, etc. and is not biased. If I have misunderstood the correct use of the templates, feel free to correct me - my position is that the article does not have a POV issue. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my position as well. Feel free to add additional citations. One concern is that the "Effects" and "Health Concerns" sections seem to be discussing a lot of the same things and could use some consolidation, so you might want to look into that first. Simishag (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the page level tag as I think it's an overly broad brush. The bulk of the article is not disputed. If anyone has a specific complaint, please use the {{POV-section}} tag, or bring it up here. Please be SPECIFIC about the POV issues you're raising; a vague complaint that the article encourages drug use is not helpful. Simishag (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the single cited source of this for alleged Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, I wonder whether it should be placed in the "chronic use" section, if used at all. Of the three case reports, only the first can be characterised as "chronic use," and only then in parallel with acknowledged, "moderate but prolonged use of cannabis." The second case reported use of, "cannabis regularly in the recent past," in adddition to previous use of LSD, heroin and amphetamine. The third case had no history of any other substance abuse, but only that she had been given one putative ecstasy pill and was subsequently raped by the supplier, in addition to a past history of sexual abuse. These all appear to be exceptionally extreme cases, all of which occurred in a relatively limited geographical area (i.e. Manchester, England). Given that the paper is dated 1991, if these effects were typical, one would expect more up-to-date and numerous sources documenting similar cases, especially since MDMA use in the UK has increased enourmously in the intervening 17 year. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing it. The entry doesn't claim this reported effect is typical (although note that the effects of mdma on the body entry currently claims that residual visual changes can occur for several days after mdma), merely that this effect is noteworthy. Published reports of HPPD are vary rare in general, so it is not surprising that there are few reports of this with MDMA. Is your argument that it is too rare to mention, or that the causality is uncertain? I would agree with adding a caveat that published case reports describe it in the context of other drug use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.41.136 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) --[reply]

The problem is that the sole cited source is 17 years olds, and deals only with very extreme cases, and nobody has come up with anything more recent. Given the exceptionally widespread use of MDMA in the UK - higher than in 1991, for sure - the absence of any subsequent reporting would suggest that it is virtually non-existant. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making the judgment that (1) it isn't real or (2) that is real but unimportant or (3) that we should only mention things with new references?

(1) I suggest the balance of evidence says HPPD is real, as concluded by Halpern and Pope in their review. Check out the erowid vaults or support group websites for more recent examples of MDMA and possible HPPD, such as this one: http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=52693.

(2) I suggest the severity of the syndrome makes it important. A reasonable rule of thumb might be that low prevalence adverse events should be briefly mentioned if they have high severity, as in the case of ritonavir-MDMA interactions or strokes/hemorrhage.

(3) I suggest the number or date of references is not a useful guide. It's a fallacy to estimate prevalence of clinical syndromes from number of clinical reports, since publication is based on which patients seek help and what cases have a novel angle for readers of journals. The wikipedia entry for hppd notes that people rarely seek medical help for HPPD. And unless you can come up with a cure or something splashy, the likely novel angle for getting HPPD cases published will be 'this is a case associated with a new drug'. --71.158.243.2 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article spells ecstasy with a capital E but shouldn't it be lowercase, just like heroin and morphine? What's the consensus on the spelling? Wikischolar1983 (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should use "MDMA" over any street name. That said, I would prefer the use of "Ecstasy" to avoid confusion. "Heroin" and "morphine" have always been used primarily to refer to those drugs, but "ecstasy" has been used in poetry and prose since long before MDMA existed. "What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?" - John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn Simishag (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be lower case. It is not a proper noun, and no one reading an article on an illicit street drug would confuse the topic of the article with the word's other use or uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.240.204 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, either form is acceptable. I prefer to use "Ecstasy" because I view it as a proper noun (street name) for a specific substance, much like Special K, Bromodragonfly, and Blue Mystic. Another example of a street name for a drug that can be found both capitalized and in lower case is Foxy Methoxy, or foxy methoxy. Here are some reference articles that used "Ecstasy" when referring to the street name for MDMA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19032963?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19004415?ordinalpos=25&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Psychedevil (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Psychedevil[reply]

Can you wiki citizens please take a look at the bottom issue in Talk:Psychedelic therapy?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychedelic_therapy thanx --Psyres2012 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should keep my website, PsychedelicResearch.org, as an external link on this entry (and three others). It was previously listed but has been removed (I just undid the removal). The site points out, quotes, and discusses scientific findings about clinical research with MDMA and hallucinogens. This is my area of expertise (some publications) I believe the link is helpful and appropriate. The goal is to provide better public access to scientific findings on this topic. Please take a look & agree or disagree about the appropriateness of the link. --MattBagg (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your website is a self-published source. Unacceptable. Simishag (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope others will disagree. Yes, there is a little self-published material by me on the site (always in italics to distinguish it), as in all sites. I could argue that is "material by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and thus fits the WP-SPS guidelines. (Actually, I'm hoping someone else will make this argument for me -- since it isn't the kind of thing one can usefully say about oneself.) But the main point and major content of the site (all the text not in italics) is long quotes with links to the cited new (and sometimes classic) papers. This is not stuff that I am self-publishing, merely uncovering, archiving, or linking. For example, my recent entry on MDA (link so others can evaluate) -- whose link you just deleted from the wikipedia MDA entry -- quotes the entire account of the first experiment with MDA by its inventor, Gordon Alles. This account, from an out-of-print 1959 book, is otherwise very difficult to find, too long to put on wikipedia, and likely not appropriate for wikisource. The same entry has a pdf of Friedhoff's 1958 publication on results of clinical trials of MDA as a potential antidepressant. That study is not yet listed in either the MAPS or the erowid database. Throughout the site, the self-published content exists primarily to give context to this other already-published material.--MattBagg (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added the link as a "blog". Your site appears to be mostly reprints of previously published articles, with fairly limited commentary by you. On the first point, anything that's been previously published can be cited here directly; there's no reason to favor your site over that of the original publisher. On the second point, you have published in the field and one could make an argument that your commentary might be useful because you are an "established expert" as discussed in WP:SPS; one could also argue that as a grad student, you have not yet attained the status of "expert". However, that argument is secondary; in my opinion, your commentary is essentially original research. It would be inappropriate to add directly to the article, and putting it on a separate Web site and citing yourself here doesn't change that.

As for the out-of-print sources, if you are really the only place to find these articles, I don't see a problem with using your Web site for direct citations in the article text. But I am curious to know why you think Wikisource is inappropriate. For that matter, I'm curious as to why 50 year old articles are not yet listed on MAPS or Erowid. Simishag (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I will first give some not-entirely-on-point responses to give background, then I will get to the key issue.

Basically, it seemed like there was a need for a specialized science news resource in this field that didn't force people to rely on conventional media, and since it is my job to follow developments in this field, it is currently little effort to maintain the resource. Note that simply updating the wikipedia and wikimedia entries is not the whole solution. It isn't appropriate to have lengthy quotes from or links to every important new science paper added to wikipedia entries. In fact, it is doubtful whether we would really want every important new science paper even cited on wikipedia. There are more than 2500 MDMA papers after all. Wikimedia would be good for noting the publication of an article, but there is still limited access to the actual information.

This is largely due to copyright issues. We certainly can (and do) cite articles directly here. Usually when people cite an article they link to pubmed or the (usually commercial) publisher. Sadly, this usually means that very few people will be able to read the actual article until a year after publication and only then if the study was federally (U.S.) funded. Entries sometimes link to pdfs we find online, even though that may violate wikipedia policy when the pdfs are not licensed by the copyright owner (as is often the case). The long term solution is open-access science. A short term solution is to quote key parts of important papers within a scholarly context, which is what I am doing.

But I think what I just wrote and your comments are confusing the issue. Forget all that stuff. What we have here isn't a question of whether someone could cite something I wrote or put up on my site. No one has attempted or proposed that. We're all familiar with WP:RS. And people should obviously cite the original sources. The issue is whether my site is a sufficiently useful resource to note as an external link. The question is really WP:EL policy not WP:SPS. Please note points 3 and 4 in WP:ELYES. And note that external links do not need to meet RS standards.

If a site by a clinical hallucinogen researcher with up-to-date news from reliable sources on the field (and possibly maximal legal public access to the original papers) really isn't worth an external link, then the policy needs revision. Or more likely it is being misinterpreted. As far as I can see, the only reason to consider deleting the EL for my site is that I am using wordpress and RSS. Those aren't valid reasons. And I am willing to avoid the 'b' word in the link, if that word really is the problem.--MattBagg (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MattBagg, your link is inappropriate, per a couple of guidelines and policies here. Foremost, we are writing an encyclopedia here, the external links guideline states that the link should add to the page, but to me it seems that the site can perfectly be used to expand the contents of the article. Blogs are generally unacceptable (again per the external links guideline), as they are simply not reliable (per the reliable sources guideline. Moreover, you have a conflict of interest (as you stated, it is your blog), for which discussion on talkpages, waiting for consensus, and letting uninvolved editors then add the link is the way forward. As I already stated, we are writing an encyclopedia, and not a not a linkfarm or an internet directory, which are other reasons to not include the link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I continue to think you're confusing WP, especially the relevant WP:EL with the irrelevant WP:RS, though your points about COI and consensus are apt. The removed EL added to the page by presenting results in more detail than possible in an article. The same source material could be incorporated into articles in less detail. But, I would note that, as a non-anonymous professional, the extent to which I can personally expand the contents of relevant wikipedia articles is fairly limited for many reasons. That is mostly up to others.--MattBagg (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this a little more, and I'm willing to reconsider my objection to the inclusion of your site. You're obviously qualified to discuss the subject matter, your edits appear to have been in good faith, and you seem enthusiastic about contributing, so I don't want to scare you off with slavish obedience to the rules. But I think you need to address the problems that have been raised, because I suspect other editors will bring this up again.

First is that your site, as currently constructed, is a blog. Whether you call it that or not, or whether you use WordPress or not, are irrelevant. You are the publisher, editor and sole author of the content on the site (excluding the quoted papers, of course). The COI is not really an issue anymore since we're all aware of it now, but as I see it, the inclusion of the site can only be defended based on your status as an expert. I don't question this status but others might and I'd like to avoid a pissing contest over who has the superior credentials. To play devil's advocate, what's to stop me from setting up a site just like yours and linking it here? Potential solutions could include inviting other experts in your field to post their own commentaries of relevant articles on your site, seeking sanction/sponsorship from your university or reworking the site to draw a clearer distinction between news and commentary/analysis. All of those would help change the perception from that of "blog" to a legitimate scholarly organization.

Second is the concern over copyright issues. You've alluded to this a couple of times but I feel like there's something missing. I know some of these papers are not freely available online (or only as abstracts), but it seems like you're saying that you are authorized to post substantial excerpts of these papers on your site. I'm concerned that your extensive verbatim copying may not qualify as fair use. See WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and WP:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Simishag (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking so much time to consider this. Regarding expertise, I am aware of two related WP that give guidance. First, WP:SPS suggests some SPS is acceptable if the author's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Second, WP:RS suggests evaluating 'scholarship' by looking at the acceptance of peer reviewed publications using google scholar (my results with some seemingly unavoidable artifacts) or other citation indices. Now, I don't believe SPS and RS fully apply to EL, since the EL standard is different (e.g., sites which "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" can be considered as EL). But those WP give guidance that appears useful for evaluating expertise in cases where ELs might be justified based on this (e.g., the "recognized authority" clause). So one could count or read citations in the equivalent of the link above, ignoring both book chapters (which are not peer reviewed and may not be "reliable third-party publications" in the strictest interpretation of scientific scholarship) and stuff apparently written by relatives that google fails to filter.

The distinction between commentary and other material is maintained by having all commentary in italics. The top right sidebar on the site explains this policy. I'm not certain what could be clearer than that but am certainly open to suggestions. I considered figuring out how to affiliate the site with UCB, but I am finishing up and won't be there much longer. Other contributors is a great idea (any volunteers?), although few scientists may be willing since such writing doesn't count on the CV and there are often concerns that informal writing can be a liability. I do hope to find some brave souls in the future.

Regarding copyright, I am not licensed to quote; I quote articles under fair use, reproducing a small portion of the total piece for noncommercial scholarly purposes in a way that is unlikely to decrease and might even increase a copyright work's market value. Whether a fair use defense would succeed in this case could only be learned in court, if it ever went there, which is always the case with fair use. But the salient point is I looked it up, got advice, and am actively trying to follow copyright law (while I personally pursue CC alternatives in my own writing -- to my annoyance, I haven't gotten the CC license to display properly yet). I would suggest editors shouldn't make a policy of preemptively guessing hypothetical court cases unless there is a history of copyright holders making successful litigation in analogous situations. To do otherwise would chip away at fair use and distort the IP system we are trying to respect (and improve). I think my approach is defensible and should be more than enough to satisfy the cited WP.

Thanks again.--MattBagg (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So on the issue of reinstating the external link to psychedelicresearch.org (which I run), there's one NO from Beetstra, the person who removed the link, and one MAYBE from Shimishag. Does anyone else care to add an opinion? Consensus is hard to achieve without any participants. --MattBagg (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to adding the site. Simishag (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'effects,' it seems to be trying to make the drug seem like a very, very positive thing. Mind you, I support legalization of drugs, but these points seem somewhat slanted, like:

• Decreased hostility and insecurity
• Increased feelings of intimacy with others
• Feelings of empathy towards others
• Ability to discuss anxiety-provoking topics with markedly-increased ease
• A strong sense of inner peace and self-acceptance
• Feelings of insightfulness and mental clarity

This all seems like it's trying to send the message "This drug is great!" I don't feel it is all that neutral and I feel it needs to be fact checked, someone just decapitated somebody on a bus while high on this, that doesn't sound like decreased hostility of feelings of empathy! Zazaban (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are all subjective effects, but similar ideas are widely published in the scientific literature. I agree with the need for fact checking. For subjective effects listed under "Effects", we should either link another WP article or have a quote & cite. It wouldn't hurt to cite all of the other effects as well. Simishag (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zazaban - where did you hear that MDMA was related to the bus decapitation? That's the first I've heard of it - and it doesn't fit with personal experience or research I've done. One might check this report for crime rates and MDMA - showing a decrease in violent crime in MDMA users by about 50% with use within one year. http://thedea.org/docs/2005_Hendrickson_22659_1.pdf Which shows that MDMA users (within the last year) were less likely to commit assault or burglary, but were more likely to spend more time in jail and be arrested for drug offenses than non-ecstasy users. As far as neutrality is concerned, it seems like the anti-drug people want the article to be biased to support their opinions that aren't backed by science or studies. If "It's not negative enough" is biased, while relying upon scientific research and behavioral studies, then the article is not biased - those challenging it's neutrality are attempting to make it so. Kallepash

I think violence due to MDMA is really a minimal exception, and would also like to ask for a source on that story.

As far as the effects mentioned go, I don't think any of those things are in dispute are they? Furthermore, there is another page on MDMA devoted to addressing possible implications of long-term use, as well as other portions of the main article. So whatever the couple things you singled out "say" by themselves is largely immaterial compared to the total message communicated by all the information combined, which I see no one has mentioned.

I'd say the POV issue is moot unless someone can demonstrate that a statement that is false, misleading, or irrelevant.

Kst447 (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be the incident in question, but the link with MDMA seems extremely tenous. Considering that it would be a completely asymptomatic reaction, extrapolating "some of the other passengers were taking ecstasy" as "the killer was on ecstasy" is a phenomenal leap. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is going to suggest any constructive changes I am going to remove the tag.

Kst447 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, no one even confirmed the use of ecstasy in that article - it was just an unsubstantiated claim made by an ex-boyfriend who hadn't even been on the bus. Wcp07 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some claims show the adverse effect of this "drug", other refutal this claim and another statement will denied this fact and so on. So who is wrong?.

First :NPOV are not consideres as a proof. So, sorry, no matter the claim of some "medics", to determine some facts about a drugs will need a complex, long and pretty expensive study, over the personal opinion of a simple doctor. In fact, there still doctor that claims to smoking will not cause cancer in the lungs.

Second :worldwide this sustance is considered as a dangerous drug, reaffirmed with several (and serious) studies about this matter. While it's possible a chance of mistake or plain political use, then those are true facts and wikipedia is not a place to discuss and obtain a final veredict (NPOV).

So, any proof involving a serious study (from Mayo, Merk, J&J,Pfizer,Amgen, Genentech FDA or any serious organization/laboratory) must be considered, otherwise is just a NPOV and musn't be used.

--190.47.241.187 (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your message is completely clear to me. Could you try rephrasing?

Kst447 (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Simishag got rid of the guesses and approximations under Legal issues why were they reintroduced? Example: "1 gram of MDMA (approximately ten pills) equivalent to 1 gram of heroin (approximately 50 doses)". Unless sources can be added it's fairly subjective, and even with source(s) it really doesn't seem like necessary information that WP should be consider with (unless the said doses/quantities are mentioned specifically by law). I'm going to delete these minor additions, if you wish to re-add them please supply some form of back up as everyone could easily have their say of what a single dose is, leaving a unneeded room for guesswork and personalization. Thanks.--Astavats (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The legal issue being highlighted - and a similar although even more extreme move by the authorities in the UK a few years ago provoked a similar response - is that what are relatively "small" amounts of MDMA are subject to - or proposed to be subject to - harsher or as harsh penalties as a "larger" amount of heroin, arguably a more dangerous/destructive/socially disruptive drug. In that context, it is self-evidently vital to quantify the respective amounts of each drug. There is plenty of evidence that the average Ecstasy pill contains 100 milligrammes of MDMA - as indeed is already noted on the page - hence one gramme equals ten pills. As stated in my edit summary, the dosage for heroin comes from the WIkipedia page on it, and seems a sensible derivation of a stated 5-20mg, even though heavy users can use much more. We can probably debate the suitable dosage measure for the latter, but a simple gramme-for-gramme comparison is misleading. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, and feel it will only push the article to unnecessary lengths (which Erowid.org, etc. could easily cover), however this is Wikipedia and to avoid a (possible) edit-war I'll leave it your way unless/until other(s) put a say on this. Though I'm going to change "50" to "fifty" as "ten" is written out. Take care.--Astavats (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a single mention of dosing/usage in terms of the form in which it comes (how many pills, for example) is important *somewhere*. Good to give a real-world feel for what we're talking about, rather than forcing readers to do math. That said, it would be even better to have a cited ref that talks about it in that form instead of even us having to do math (especially if there are a range of strengths of pills available, etc). DMacks (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a referenced/cited compromise, it would help keep things objective. Though it should be noted Erowid doesn't have one answer for MDMA single dosage mentioning four different non-threshold levels; Common for small/sensitive people, common for most people, common for large/unsensitive people, and required by few. Erowid also mentions "Trying to calculate dosages from tablets containing unknown quantities of MDMA can be difficult, but a good quality tablet of street ecstasy generally contains an average of between 75 and 100 mg MDMA". This really seems to be a icy road that pushes into subjectivity. I think Wikipedia refers to what Erowid is doing as "weasel words" (i.e. vague terms - good quality, generally, average). I don't deny at all Erowid's reliability, or value, rather attempt to show that even they don't have a clear and decisive answer. In conclusion the quickest way to resolve this is the WP:Burden guideline: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". When properly sourced this issue will evaporate. Best regards.--Astavats (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who posted the 10 pills thing. I had it pegged at 4 pills. I put it back. The source is still the Federal Sentencing guidelines - at the end of the examples. The weight per pill of ecstasy used by the Feds is 250mg per pill regardless of purity, quantity of MDMA, or dosage factor. This information is pulled from the law directly.

http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/2d1_1.html

About 5/7 of the way down the page you come to a small table titled, "TYPICAL WEIGHT PER UNIT (DOSE, PILL, OR CAPSULE) TABLE" which places MDMA at 250mg per pill or capsule, unless the actual weight is known... and pills come out pretty close to 250mg with filler, which is chargeable under federal law. Heroin I'm not so familiar with - so I'll leave it at 50. I think my math put it at 52, but I don't remember the source of my numbers. It isn't listed in the dose units in the sentencing guidelines.(Kallepash) Aug 17 3AM PST) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to add that pills average around 78mg MDMA per pill and capsules average around 92mg per pill, not 100mg per pill. I'll have to look up where those numbers came from though - I did the math on that over a year ago and I might not remember correctly. There are some cited sources for the statistics I have on my myspace blog at blog dot myspace dot com /index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=24814438 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallepash (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's bizarre, to say the least. Effectively it means that someone caught with 999mg of MDMA crystal would be treated less harshly that someone caught with four pills containing - probably - less than 400mg of MDMA! Nick Cooper (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's bizarre until you think that the majority of street drugs (including ecstasy) are cut with several different agents to increase the mass and, as a result, the profits of the dealer. Some drugs in some regions can be as low as single-digit percent purity. Therefore, most legal guidelines are set so that the complete weight of drug-containing substance is used. Otherwise, it would be an unnecessary drain on crime labs to have to quantify the exact amount of drug in every sample submitted.

Also interesting is that in many jurisdictions, the sample doesn't necessarily even have to contain any drug for it to be illegal to sell. I could package wheat flour in a baggie, and if I try to pass it off as an illegal drug, I can be arrested, tried, and convicted as though I had been selling the pure substance. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

1. "Dosage" is a medical term, not a legal one. "Legal issues" is not the place to get into a discussion of what a "typical" or "medically appropriate" dose is.
2. The comparisons to marijuana and heroin are incorrect. The cited document (Federal Sentencing Guidelines), in the section "LSD, PCP, and Other Schedule I and II Hallucinogens (and their immediate precursors)" establishes an equivalence of 1g MDMA to 500g marijuana. Heroin is listed separately under "Schedule I or II Opiates" and establishes an equivalence of 1g heroin to 1kg marijuana. Also, I don't think it's valid to use any of these equivalences as "conversion factors" to say that an amount of substance A is "equivalent" to substance B.
3. The table "TYPICAL WEIGHT PER UNIT (DOSE, PILL, OR CAPSULE) TABLE" should not be used a source for any claim of MDMA dosage. The table itself is unsourced and it's unclear what relation this information has to what one would consider a "typical" dosage.
4. Additionally, there is a note on that table that says "Do not use this table if any more reliable estimate of the total weight is available from case-specific information." I would speculate that in virtually any case, the prosecution would test seized pills to establish the purity. In a small case, they could probably test all the pills; in a large case, maybe a sample would suffice. But it's not at all clear that a sentence would be passed based on a blanket assessment that "all these pills are defined as 250mg and all are defined as 100% pure so that's how much MDMA is here." Also, see "Notes to Drug Quantity Table" section B. MDMA would probably be included here as an analogue of amphetamine or methamphetamine.

Actually, in most jurisdictions, the pills are not tested for purity and, indeed, every sample is treated as though it is 100% pure. Accurately measuring the purity of a sample is an expensive and time-consuming procedure, and most labs already have enough of a backlog as is. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The "fairness" of MDMA prosecution and sentences is a political question, not a legal one. The debate should be presented but we should be wary of saying or implying "look, 1 pill equals 100 doses of this way worse drug, that's not fair." Simishag (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not one mention of reasons why it is so often associated (correctly or incorrectly) with sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.167.44 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is briefly mentioned here. It doesn't seem to be important enough to be included in the MDMA article in my personal opinion, however you are allowed to make constructive additions if you wish.--Astavats (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word ecstasy is usually associated with sex. The drug was called such because it sounds better than empathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustaballs (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some further studies have also shown that this damage causes increased rates of depression and anxiety, even after quitting the drug."[39][40]

The quote above is stated in such a way as to assume that MDMA is in fact neurotoxic, and it also uses the word "causes" when the most that has been shown is an association between Ecstasy use and higher levels of depression and anxiety. This association may be due to pre-existing differences, other drug use, or lifestyle factors, to name a few. Also, the word "increased" is loaded. 131.95.108.39 (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)LetsBeFair[reply]

edit: Bustaballs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustaballs (talk • contribs) 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Mithoefer, the psychiatrist leading a 2005 trial in South Carolina, thought the drug could help soldiers discuss their experiences with therapists, by opening them up to talk about their traumas without fear. Mithoefer believed that the ongoing trial was, '...Looking very promising. It's too early to draw conclusions, but in these treatment-resistant people so far the results are encouraging. People are able to connect more deeply on an emotional level with the fact that they are safe now.' The studies involved approximately 230 people, none of whom have had any serious adverse reactions. Neuropsychological tests and position emission tomography (PET) scans of the subjects' brains also provided no evidence of brain toxicity. There are also several trials concurrently running in Europe using doses similar to those in US trials (100mg to 125mg of MDMA--the amount of an average street Ecstasy pill)."

The Incredibly Strange history of Ecstasy - Tim Pilcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustaballs (talk • contribs) 13:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any reference or explanation in the text, a photo more than halfway down the page suddenly makes reference to pills called "Ferrari's" [sic] and "Bacardi Bats." The former, especially, is suspect, since the apostrophe turns it into a possessive case, not a plural. Is it really talking about something belonging to someone named "Ferrari"? In any case, there should be some explanation either in the text or in the picture caption, itself. rowley (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added this how does it sound: Drug dealers press MDMA powder into pills called "presses" using binders to hold the MDMA together. Since MDMA is typically taken at a rave or dance club illegal MDMA pill manufacturers add other substances into their pills. Presses commonly have methamphetamine, caffeine, TMFF, piperazines, and other drugs that are more available and cheaper to the dealer. Sometimes dealers press a low dose not even active enough about 5mg of MDMA along with methamphetamine into presses called "meth bombs" so when the pill is tested for MDMA is comes up positive. Presses which are sold to have MDMA in them are called ecstasy, sometimes sketchy dealers don't put any MDMA in them at all because its cheaper to find alternatives. Ecstasy manufacturers press logo's into their pills so that users can identify which pills actually have MDMA in them. For instance a pill presser would use the Ferrari logo to press his MDMA pills. However people mimic these logos and another pill presser would use the same Ferrari logo and press pure methamphetamine in them so that people think that the Ferrari's are good pills because of the other dealer.

I believe the pictures I chose are more appropriate. Coaster420 (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no axe to grind here - but the original pictures (which have been restored by another editor) seem more appropriate than those inserted by Coaster420. Springnuts (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur that the original pictures are better. The first more accurately reflects the well-established variation in pill design, while the unexplained presence of legal 5-HTP capsules in its "replacement" is potentially confusing. As regards the second picture, going on annecdotal evidence, oral ingestion of MDMA powder or crystal - either "as is" or in capsules - is far more common than "snorting," which the "replacement" picture appears to give undue prominence to. The added "discussion" was too colloquial, and details such as claims of pills "commonly" containing substances such as methamphetamine or piperazines are not globally true, so are again misleading. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small number?

"While Shulgin has been named the Godfather of Ecstasy, Zeff has been called the Johnny Appleseed of Ecstasy because of the way he evangelized the drug. In fact, Zeff's zeal saw him introduce the substance to as many as 4,000 psychologists around the nation, according to Ann Shulgin."

The Incredibly Strange History of Ecstasy - Tim Pilcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustaballs (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those psychologists may have taken it, but there is no evidence that more than a few of them used it as treatment in their patients. --68.164.186.164 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed what seems to be a typo near the top of the article, in the second paragraph. I'll highlight it below:

MDMA's experiential effects are more consistent than those produced by most psychedelics, and its euphoria appears to be distinct from most stimulants. It is also considered usual for its tendency to produce a sense of intimacy...

It seems to me it was meant to read "It is also considered unusual..."

Misha Vargas (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we want to, we could just say "It has a tendency to produce a sense of intimacy...", or even "It has an unusual tendency to produce a sense of intimacy...", without crediting that opinion to some unknown, ethereal "someone". That is logically the same, it seems to me. If anyone wants to question that claim, they can do that.

Misha Vargas (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That specific "unusual"→"usual" change is a vandalism that happens here on a regular basis. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]