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. Neuroscience B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs B‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Rave B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RaveWikipedia:WikiProject RaveTemplate:WikiProject RaveRave articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Chemicals B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I don't want to register an account as I very rarely edit Wikipedia, however, regarding the following line:

In 2010 the BBC reported that use of MDMA had decreased in the UK in previous years. This is thought to be due to increased seizures and decreased production of the precursor chemicals used to manufacture MDMA. The availability of legal alternatives to MDMA such as mephedrone is also thought to have contributed to its decrease in popularity.[24]

Mephedrone is no longer legal in the UK so this should be reworded to remove legal. Mephedrone usage is common and is frequently unknowingly used (swapped out in place of real MDMA) as well as recreationally used on its own. An excellent link describing usage of Mephedrone in the UK (and its replacement of MDMA in tablets): http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2010/09/19/mephedrone-4-methylmethcathinone-appearing-in-ecstasy-in-the-netherlands/

Hopefully somebody can edit this article for me :)

72.52.102.5 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.24.98.1.233 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section which says " Although one study[61] argues that MDMA itself causes fluid retention and increased body temperature, while alcohol is a diuretic and lowers the body temperature. Therefore, it is possible that a small amount of alcohol may help counteract a few of the adverse effects of MDMA." Should be removed or placed next to the following information (with rewording); although it refers to a study which shows that alcohol may limit the side effects of MDMA the general scientific concensus shows that it is best to rehydrate with water or isotonic drinks, in order to rehydrate the body. Alcohol will obviously only further dehydrate the body.

This i potentially dangerous misinformation and i think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.88.80 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for info on ecstasy and when I opened the ecstasy page it read as a sales pitch for ecstasy, no facts or harmful effects I didn't even know the MDMA page existed, the only link to this page is a link to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, which many people (including I) will overlook as just a link to some chemical compound. The only things on the ecstasy page are a description of the positive effects, the ways to mitigate negative effects (without naming them), a list of about 25 substances that could be in ecstasy tablets, and a reference to a study that says how harmless ecstasy is.

Because of the lack of information and NPOV, I suggest that ecstasy (drug) become a redirect to MDMA. Maybe copy over the harm reduction section, but there are no sources on any of the claims there, so I suggest rewriting that into a new section as well.

A temporary solution would be to put at the top of the page a link to the MDMA page something like "For the active ingredient in ecstasy, see MDMA." I don't know how to do this, otherwise I would.

What do you all think? Holman.mike (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note Talk:Ecstasy (drug) is erroneously redirecting here. I will amend this. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "erroneously" redirecting here: El3ctr0nika (talk · contribs) forked the article in August, but didn't fork the talk page. I've re-merged and pinged the user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more links on the Ecstasy (Drug) page to MDMA, including at the top of the page. Tova Hella (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the redirect pending a consensus being reached otherwise. --John (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that ecstasy (drug) redirected to MDMA I was surprised to see that there used to be two separate articles which were merged into one. I would have thought the decision would go the other way as ecstasy can have a very different meaning from MDMA. I understand that some effort is made to highlight this in the opening section, but I still think that the article could do with more explanation as to the difference in terminology. I am therefore proposing that we have a subheading titled Ecstasy explaining what ecstasy is and how it is not necessarily the same thing as MDMA. Apart from anything else it seems like important safety information. If people support this idea I will make a sandbox mock-up of how I think the article should look and we can decide whether or not to edit the article. Thank you for any feedback Gul e (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the heading "Rebound / withdrawal" to "After effects". We could also use "Subacute effects", as "subacute" means between acute and chronic, but "after effects" is more common language. "Subacute" and "after" are the terms most commonly used in research articles for effects occurring within a week of MDMA use. Both terms are neutral, unlike "rebound" or "withdrawal".

"Rebound" implies that after effects are the opposite of acute MDMA effects. This up/down ecstasy/agony model is overly simplistic. Many after effects of MDMA are just a continuation of the acute side effects, and some may be a consequence of sleep deprivation (mood, Pirona and Morgan 2009 J Psychopharmacol) or physical activity (muscle ache).

"Withdrawal" implies that if people just continued taking MDMA repeatedly they would not experience these effects. Tova Hella (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the uncited sentence regarding chronic depression after use being attributable to brain damage. That's rather egregious misinformation if untrue so it definitely needs a citation. 67.233.200.190 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've called for improved references in the Side effects and After effects sections. The first one forthcoming was - Lester SJ, Baggott M, Welm S, Schiller NB, Jones RT, Foster E, Mendelson J (2000). "Cardiovascular effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial" (PDF). Annals of Internal Medicine. 133: 969-973.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I suggest that it's somewhat dubious to add reference to a study which only speculates - "preexisting cardiovascular conditions could increase cardiovascular risk compared with the carefully screened healthy volunteers in our study" - in support of the contention that both tachycardia and hypertension are "most common adverse side effects reported by users".

--SallyScot (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draeco reverted the dubious tags 21:59, 21 November 2009. I've since updated so the whole section is referenced.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following text from the article, because it implied that it was supported by references elsewhere in the article, but such references were absent. Please re-add the material, citing Reliable Sources if it is in fact accurate.

(along with paradoxical sexual dysfunction (see below))

Thanks, Vectro (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked this article as in need of globalization. It has alot of information that is not specific to any country - ie, the chemistry section. BUT, whenever it is possible for the shift to focus on a country, it focuses on either the US or UK.

The sections that in my opinion are most in need of work are "history", "legal issues", and "health concerns" - within health concerns, specifically the sub-sections "harm assessment" and "recommendation to downgrade" - it seems unbalanced to have so much detail on specific actions and assessments by health and government authorities in the UK, and no detail relating to any other countries.

Minor mention is made of europe (europe as a whole- not of any specific countries other than the UK). For instance, in the recreational use section, ecstasy prices are given in euros and US dollars (no other countries or currencies mentioned).

This article gives a strong impression that ecstasy is only used in the US and Europe (mainly the UK) - maybe someone could research a new section detailing the history and extent of MDMA use worldwide- or the "recreational use" section could be substantially expanded to include this information?

Brunk500 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So ecstasy is perfectly fine to use? I get the impression in this article that it is pro-ecstasy use. I find this disturbing as we all know that teenagers would refer to this Wikipedia page with more faith than what their teachers and parents are telling them (maybe justly so). Still I really think this article should put more emphasis on the negative long term effects of ecstasy. So what if there is a Chinese study on ecstasy which contradicts another study which finds ecstasy harmful? What we need is convergence not to put a chronology of every pro-ecstasy article and every anti-ecstasy article.

Lets face it doing this drug once or twice will not ruin your life. Still this article comes off as too benevolent because I know people who have abused ecstasy and there are cognitive impairments. This may be just anecdotal but I think many people would agree long term ecstasy abuse will destroy your life as easily as long term alcohol abuse.

I am just concerned this article is written by ecstasy users for ecstasy users. It's a closed circuit and if anyone finds a study that shows the negative effects of ecstasy the editors will find another study which counters it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.35 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about you read the entire article, it is NOT being passed off as a benign drug. And I and other drug users (hopefully) know that isn't the truth. If you have problems with specific wording please do say so. C6541 (T↔C) 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also find parts of the article biased, putting ecstasy in what is probably a too positive light. As for specific suggestions for improvements, take a look at the 'effects' section. It is a long list of unsourced claims with positive rings to them. I would say that all these claims should be backed up by reliable sources as per Wiki rules, or be removed. Pubmed gives a heap of documentation, such as [[1]]. Even with such sources, the positive short-term effects are given undue weight. --EthicsGradient (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out erowid.org for good sources. And often the negative side effects come at high doses, so while I think the list should be weighted better it should also reflect this fact. AC (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've briefly reviewed erowid.org. It does seem to be a decently run web-site, but it is in itself very positive about drug-use. This is okay, but compared to statements from peer-reviewed literature it should not be given too much weight. If a statement found at erowid is contradicted by peer-reviewed literature, it would have to give way to expert-generated, quality-controlled knowledge. EthicsGradient (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If i may, illegal drugs are an area where widespread misinformation is the norm. Not only the government, but drug trafficers and users informed by heresay spread information that is misleading, unsubstantiated, or intentionally lies/propoganda. Therefore, saying that this article is "too positive" or "too harsh" needs to be backed up by reliable scientific sources - NOT your personal opinions. It should not be surprising that this article doesn't fit your view of the world. 98.207.159.144 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagre, i think if anything this is biased against use of ecstacy, due to the large amount of information of adverse effects compared to how rare these actual effects are. I suggest that an incidence rate for each side effect should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.88.80 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics and AC, please see Talk:Erowid where I describe how Erowid spread blatant misinformation about the nature of marijuana and Columbian Cartels. Not a reliable or informed source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe that the article puts MDMA in a positive light COMPARED TO WHAT YOU KNEW BEFORE because of all the misinformation put out by the media. The reality is that virtually all neutral unbiased objective studies show that MDMA is benign in the long-run, and some even suggest that it encourages self-growth. Please, most anti-ecstasy articles use Ricaurte's study as a reference. It has been proven that at some point in his study he switched to methamphetamine, he used exaggerated amounts of the drug (around a few thousand doses every injection) and has himself retracted from the experiment due to it being so controversial. He also claimed completely false finds, such as the alleged link between MDMA use and Parkinson's disease http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/science/research-on-ecstasy-is-clouded-by-errors.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.Citations about MDMA in general (There are PLENTY more from where this came from): http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma.shtml http://dancesafe.org/drug-information/ecstasy-slideshow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.208.28 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So ecstasy is perfectly okay to use? I find that this article is too benevolent to ecstasy. I think ecstasy users are trying to make this article pro-ecstasy use. For every study that finds anything negative about ecstasy the editors will find a Chinese study which counters it. This leads nowhere.

This article is created by ecstasy users for ecstasy users. I find this distrubing as teenagers may use this article to inform their decision to use the drug or not. I will keep editing this talk page until this discussion goes somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.136.35 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 December 2009

Your vague generalisations are not very helpful. Could you please identify the specific parts of the text you disagree with, and why? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which sections your referring to but certainly the section heading "Beneficial effects" is problematic. Principally because it is not NPOV WP:NPOV but also because the reference it cites does not use the word "Beneficial" at all. I will change this to "Subjective effects" in line with the majority of MDMA-related literature on psychological and physiological efects of the drug.--Amaher (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because it causes brain damage in people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.64.153 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does alcohol. Even water can cause brain damage. The question is how, why, and can it be avoided. 98.207.159.144 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As a medical student I have been taught on the wards and in pharmacology that ecstasy is an extremely dangerous substance that can induce amphetamine psychosis. I can't help feeling while reading this article that it's biased toward portraying ecstasy as much less harmful than it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.68.12 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New content with references are welcome. - Steve3849^talk 14:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet stimulant pyschosis does not mention MDMA, although it does methylphenidate and even caffeine. Not saying that MDMA can't lead to it, but clearly it's not a particularly common effect. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few problems with the neurotoxicity section. First and foremost, "A number of studies [84] have demonstrated lasting serotonergic changes occurring due to MDMA exposure". This quote is completely unsubstantiated. "A number of studies" must be backed up by more than one study. I'm changing that immediately because it is not factually supported. I will change it to indicate that only one study has shown this. Secondly, this study was carried out by Ricuarte, whose work has been marginalized recently. The main problem is internal variance in his data that showed (almost certainly mistakenly) people in the same group (both in the non-user and user sections) has up to 10 times more serottonin than one another. This is biologically absurd, and makes any findings highly suspect. Even ABC, a major news network typically very anti-drug, discredits Ricuarte's study in their report. I will not change that immediately, however, as there is evidence (however faulty) behind it. If you have legitimate points to keep that, please respond soon. Sas556 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George A. Ricaurte is not a reliable source on this subject. I would suggest working on the main article, Effects_of_MDMA_on_the_human_body#Long-term_adverse_effects (which is in need of more references), and keeping the section here as a summary of that.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Here we have a very recent article showing the lack of neurotoxicity in humans: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03252.x/abstract Thanks, --79.150.179.227 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently almost no information in the article about prevalence of use. I think that a section on this should be added. For example, information about the percentage of U.S. teenage students who have used ecstasy is available at http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/HSYouthtrends.html. MathEconMajor (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the following review article (book chapter) presents a good summary of the animal and human literature concerning the potential development of neurotoxicity and anxiety following MDMA administration or use:

http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/2007/2007_Guillot_22962_1.pdf

68.54.107.114 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)MDMAreferenceobserver[reply]

that article seems to not be peer-reviewed (it is from a book), which should be a red flag. --Butterworth99 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the drugbox says it's Schedule III, which is correct, but the link goes to Schedule II. The confusion here may stem from the fact that the Canadian Parliament currently has a bill to move MDMA from schedule III to II. Anyone know how to fix the link? For some reason I don't get how it works. AC (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a problem in the drugbox template, which I have corrected - just waiting for the update to take effect, as soon as an admin updates the template. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to the wording of the United Kingdom's existing Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971, MDMA was automatically classified in the UK as a Class A drug in 1977."

What wording? I didn't find any info on this on the article for that act. In fact, I didn't find anything about automatic classification of drugs in that article. According to the article, the drug must be listed and classified before it is illegal. What am I missing here? 98.207.159.144 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's regarded as a derivative of amphetamine, so automatically went into Class A. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, if that was the case, it would have been classified when the original act came into force. There must have been an ammendment effected in 1977 with the intention to classify it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I found it was classified in 1977 by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1977.(1) I therefore removed the above sentence from the section.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The important distinction is that MDMA wasn't classified specifically, but rather it falls within the blanket ban on derivatives of tryptamine and phenethylamine adopted in the 1977 modification to the 1971 Act. The debate in the House of Lords, for example, does name some specific drugs, but not MDMA. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that MDMA was unknown in the UK at the time. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the UK legality section to reflect the above. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Since 1995, Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)has been working to develop psychedelics into legal prescription drugs. MAPS helps scientists design, fund, and obtain regulatory approval for studies of the safety and effectiveness of a number of currently illegal substances. MAPS works closely with government regulatory authorities worldwide such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) to ensure that all of its sponsored research protocols conform to ethical and procedural guidelines for clinical drug research. Included in MAPS’ research efforts are MDMA (Ecstasy) for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). ^[1] Achievements

• Opened an FDA Drug Master File for MDMA. This is required before any drug can be researched in FDA-approved human studies.^[2]
• Assisted Dr. Charles Grob to design, obtain approval for and fund the first FDA-approved study in the U.S. to administer MDMA to humans.
• Assisted in the design and is funding the world's first government-approved scientific study of the therapeutic use of MDMA (Spain).
• Sponsored studies to analyze the purity and potency of street samples of "Ecstasy".

rrently, MAPS has been given a Schedule I license to conduct research with MDMA on veterans and survivors of physical or sexual assault who are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, as well as with advanced-stage cancer patients who are experiencing anxiety associated with this diagnosis, the first licenses the DEA has granted for MDMA psychotherapy research.^[3]

Poyandow (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)poyandow[reply]

Question: Do you have a link to where this study has been written about in an academic journal, a science magazine, or some other independent reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: All the links provided are primary sources (the DMF filing, maps.org); there's no evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not a problem (try Google News archives for 'maps mdma'), but we already mention this in the Therapeutic use section. The above text appears to be mroe about MAPS, and could be added to the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies article, although that contains some similar text already.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged the article as dated, because [[2]] notes a major study that was published over a year ago: "In the first legally sanctioned trials in the USA in over twenty years, the safety profile of MDMA has been demonstrated, and it has been shown to be a successful adjunct to psychotherapy in the management of treatment-resistant Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in victims of sexual abuse and sufferers of other conditions.[9]" --Elvey (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Mithoefer PTSD study which is already cited in the medical use section. (There have been a couple of published articles from this study, as well as conference presentations.) Note: Add new topics to the end of the talk page so they are easy to see (click "new section" at the top of the page). I'm removing the dated tag, but the discussion of clinical trials of MDMA could be improved and made more detailed. Tova Hella (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "MDMA is legal in most countries"

to

"MDMA is illegal in most countries"

90.198.134.57 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vandalism reverted. DMacks (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why nobody bothered to update this page with Addiction's February, 2011 study, so I'll take the liberty of doing so. --134.129.54.198 (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found it cited under "Harm Assessment". Any objections if it's mentioned in the "Chronic Usage" section as well? Seems relevant. --134.129.54.198 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so this artical says there is no cognitive imparements. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1432.007/abstract;jsessionid=671FB773DC5A0DC17D8D6ACEB864BD46.d03t03 and this artical says a MDMA users brain looks similar to someone who is developing alzeimers but it actually doesn't. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1432.007/abstract;jsessionid=671FB773DC5A0DC17D8D6ACEB864BD46.d03t03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.63.220 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the animated space-fill GIF is adding anything to the representation, and I find (unwanted) moving objects on screen annoying. Can we replace it with a static image? Jon C (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Cantaloupe2 's recent edit, I have restored the correct picture of the Jakarta factor that was erroneously changed without explanation by Editor182 on 29 November 2010. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you people understand that this article has been written from the criminal point of view and is totally void of medical, that is professional usage, the right dosage etc? As criminal, it is sensationalist. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you're seeing, perhaps you could give some details here, or alternatively be WP:BOLD. As far as medical dosage, well there isn't one since it isn't approved by any organization that I know of for medical use. N^oformation ^Talk 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought "ecstasy" was a more common name for this compound than MDMA. Anyone agree? NickCT (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in the past; see [3]. Also WP:DRUGGUIDE. Simishag (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cite to policy. I'm a little surprised by the rINN naming convention. It strikes me as though there would be examples of where WP:COMMONNAME and rINN pointed to distinctly different titles. But perhaps that a discussion for elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a judgment call, but I think the biggest reason is that "ecstasy" was in use in the English language long before MDMA was first synthesized; see the disambig page for ecstasy. Contrast with heroin which had no previous use (and was in fact a trade name when it was legal). This page was at one point named "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" but MDMA is certainly easier for people to type. Some have argued that "MDMA" refers unambiguously to the chemical while "ecstasy" could refer to pills sold as MDMA but really containing other substances, but this seems to me a weak argument; no one makes this argument about cocaine even though it is almost always adulterated. Simishag (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... Interesting points. Out of curiosity, what is the rINN for cocaine and heroin, and what is the best source to get that info. NickCT (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search turned up this useful UN reference: http://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/MLD-06-58676_Vol_1_ebook.pdf . The relevant answers are "cocaine", "heroin" and "3,4-methylenedioxymetamfetamine (MDMA)". Simishag (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think of having an ecstasy sub heading as I proposed here. Let me know if you think it's worth me making a mock-up. Gul e (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is flagrantly biased towards the opinion that MDMA is not addictive. It's bizarre since it's an amphetamine, but I'd suggest you at least provide something more than two citations to support over 30 statements regarding the addictive nature of MDMA.

The chart labeled "Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs." references citation number 58. http://web.cgu.edu/faculty/gabler/drug_toxicity.htm

It arranges the information there counterfactually by assuming that Moderate/low, Moderate, Moderate/high fall within a continuity of succession.

The chart labeled "Relative physical harm and dependence of ecstasy" combines the information from this source with the data in source 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0140-6736%2807%2960464-4

These charts are presented without any context or characterization of their meaning within the main body. In fact, instead of characterizing dependency and addiction through prose, it begins: "The UK study placed great weight on the risk for acute physical harm, the propensity for physical and psychological dependency on the drug, and the negative familial and societal impacts of the drug..." but then devotes the entire paragraph to a discussion of how MDMA injuries are reported more often than paracetamol deaths.

This article presents a wealth of information indicating that few deaths occur from MDMA use yet treats psychological dependency in a facile manner.

The subarticle "Ecstasy and it's effects" has already been flagged.

My main disagreement is that this article presents MDMA as being non-addictive. It fails to mention any uniform definition of addiction physiological/psychological (cocaine and crystal meth under this criteria are non-addictive as well as they do not cause physical dependence, however it would be laughable if an article on cocaine did not mention addiction), and the article presents a bias towards the POV that MDMA is non-addictive by purposefully omitting any reference to this controversy.

I will be going through and noting all places where citation is needed. Please, do not revert them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyfaces (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an expert in the field? Will you be presenting any references from those who are? --John (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert. However, it's hard to ignore the mounds of evidence for both physical and psychological MDMA dependence.

Here is an article from 2010 Is Ecstasy A Drug of (Physical) Dependence? Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19836170 Full: http://www.qcmhr.uq.edu.au/Publications/Global%20Burden%20of%20Disease/GBD%20website_2011_attachments/Degenhart%202010%20Is%20ecstasy%20a%20drug%20of%20dependence.pdf

"Few studies have examined ‘dependence’ among ecstasy users [...] An early study found that 64% of a sample of 185 regular ecstasy users met criteria for lifetime ecstasy dependence..."

"The United Kingdom survey of 1106 ecstasy-consuming dance magazine readers screened 17% positively for lifetime ecstasy dependence..."

Here are some more article and pull-quotes:

A study of 26 US university students who used ecstasy found that 14 met criteria for ecstasy DSM-IV abuse or dependence (Hanson and Luciana, 2004).

Seventeen percent of 154 Washington rave attendees screened positive on the Center for Substance Abuse Research Arrestee Drug Screener for probable ecstasy dependence; gender, race and other drug use were the strongest predictors of ecstasy dependence (Yacoubian Jr et al., 2004).

This article is simply a warehouse of all previous studies concerning ecstasy dependence.

The part of the article marked 4. Summary and implications is a good idea of what I feel we need to include.

I'd also appreciate it if JOHN would stop removing the POV flag before this issue is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyfaces (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite difficult to take you seriously when you misrepresent sources, as you have done twice now. I'll let the tag stay for 24 hours or so to see if there is any real issue; so far from your edits I do not see one. --John (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the source you cite in support of MDMA's physical addictiveness contains this: "Some people report problems controlling and concern about their use, but the notable lack of case reports of severe withdrawal syndromes in the literature suggests that physical symptoms play a more limited role than psychological ones. Although tolerance has been reported, as has withdrawal, the relevant literature consists largely of self-reports in research studies involving questionnaires designed for the assessment of withdrawal from other drugs. Animal models similarly suggest that any withdrawal syndrome is much less severe than for other drugs of dependence." --John (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume the issue is now resolved. I am taking down the tag now. --John (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think there should be an article about them Nikos 1993 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying there should be a separate article about non-MDMA "ecstasy" pills? --Thoric (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think MDMA and Ecstasy (drug) should be splitted as they were before. Nikos 1993 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, I think they are fine at the long-standing consensus positions. --John (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not think there should be two separate articles ('MDMA' and 'Ecstasy (drug)'), this article should definitely make it clear that 'ecstasy tablets', 'bickies' or 'pills' do not necessarily contain MDMA or may contain MDMA in conjunction with other chemicals and drugs in unpredictable proportions. It is important to highlight this fact so that people can accurately interpret any discussion of health risks or research - for example, compound ecstasy pills (the norm) are likely to have unpredictable health risks, while the risks associated with pure MDMA powder/rock are more readily discernable. Ecstasy pills may contain heroin, amphetamines, ketamine, LSD and a whole host of other drugs in addition to, or instead of, MDMA, as well as household cleaning products such as ammonia or bleach, talc powder, etc etc. Obviously any discussion of 'ecstasy pills' needs to be distinguished from MDMA for the purposes of clarity, even if ecstasy is commonly interpreted as MDMA based because of its history. [Jess] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.39.133 (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purity is already addressed in this article. Furthermore, there are no separate articles for "cocaine" and "blow", or "heroin" and "junk". In a drug context, "Ecstasy" means "MDMA". I am aware of no sources that suggest otherwise. Adulteration is a common problem with the purchase of illicit substances, and I don't mind mentioning that within this article, but creating a separate, inherently speculative article to discuss a fairly small aspect of MDMA is just silly. Simishag (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Simishag - I can see you've already discussed this with others elsewhere too, which must get a bit tiring for you, so apologies for dragging it up again. Nonetheless, I would suggest that there is a significant difference between the heroine/junk or cocaine/blow versus mdma/ecstasy distinctions. My understanding is that when people talk about junk, they are always referring to heroine, and when they talk about blow they always mean cocaine - regardless of how clean the substance is - whereas when people talk about ecstasy they may or may not be talking about MDMA-based pills - it's essentially the 'pills' that they are referring to rather than the drug, even if the original 'pills' were primarily vehicles for MDMA. If those same people who were talking about 'ecstasy' were discussing MDMA in powder, rock or capsule form, on the other hand, they wouldn't use the term 'ecstasy', they would use the term 'MDMA'. At least that is the case in Australia. The article already does an excellent job of pointing this out in the purity section - if that is your work then well done :-). The reason I stress this is primarily because what research and reports exist relating to death and/or neurotoxicity and/or dangers may be mistakenly interpreted by some as referring to 'ecstasy pills' when in fact they refer to the chemical MDMA, or vice versa. Anyway - keep up the good work, Jess-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.39.133 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the recently added paragraph on date rape from the intro to the adverse effect section. MDMA is not considered a date rape drug (although of course there are cases of people being raped while on MDMA), so I don't think this belongs in the introduction. The book cited, Designer Drugs by Olive and Triggle, is written for teenagers, so a better source is needed. I'm not really sure where to mention date rape or what, if anything, to say about it. Tova Hella (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section describe the environmental effects caused by the harvesting of safrole, a substance used to manufacture MDMA. As this section fails to describe the effects of the harvesting, nor how big impact MDMA have, do I not see why the section is notable. A near copy of this section is already in safrole's article, so I petition for its removal from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.118.189 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to propose the same; if MDMA production consumes a negligible part of world safrole production, this should at most come as a mention in a discussion of precursors. Rodface (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information in this section should be on a separate page. Details about drugs other than MDMA should be on pages for those drugs. There has been a lot of debate about having an "ecstasy pill" page. That is probably a good idea for this sort of information. Tova Hella (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not a chemist, it is my understanding that there are two stereoisomers of MDMA, much like amphetamine, methamphetamine etc. (see here. If the same trend is true as with these similar drugs they will likely have different effects. In fact I have read that they do. It seems like it's worth mentioning in the article. Maybe I'll try and include it at one point but if someone more experienced would like to step in....

Or in fact the reason I started this is that the skeletal formula does not illustrate the presence stereoisomers for the molecule. If my understanding of this is correct a wavy line, as shown in the alpha methyl bond on the amphetamine and methamphetamine skeletal formulae indicate the stereoisomerism. Therefore the MDMA skeletal formula svg should also have a wavy line as the alpha methyl bond. Is that correct? If so, who works with svg files and can change it? Gul e (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the good effects are Subjective?

and the bad ones aren´t? 89.153.211.135 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be in US$? I guess it is, but I'm really not sure, so I am reluctant to be WP:BOLD. Nevertheless, it needs SOME kind of unit. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 19:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be (RS)-1-(benzo[1,2-d]dioxol-4-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine? My logic is that the dioxolane fuses its d side most simply with the 1,2 position on the benzene, which then branches out at the 4 position.

I have only recently learned nomenclature of fused ring systems, so I may be wrong.

Reference: ^[4] (pdf) Page 26

Starprizm (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently added several references to the overdose section. This section still contains many unreferenced statements, which I cannot find a citation for. Considering there has been a citation request for that section for over 3 years now, I'm guessing nobody else can find one for them either. I propose removing the unreferenced statements and the associated tag. There will still be 20 referenced symptoms once all the unreferenced ones are removed. This is just a friendly warning in case anyone else wants to do some last minute reference searching. Freikorp (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Freikorp (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty unscientific reference supporting the inclusion of death as a possible overdose result. I'd like to see the inclusion of something more scientific and research based. Of course, that will be rather hard to provide since there isn't any such evidence. MDMA can lead to heat stroke, which if untreated (you know, drink some water) can lead to death. That's not death by MDMA, that's death by dehydration and stupidity. Here is a nice article, based on scientific research published in a scholarly medical journal, supporting this. Obviously, it is still unequivocally detrimental to one's health, but directly resulting in death? That's a stretch. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.drugs1Brakoholic (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. "Nancy Caroline's Emergency Care In The Streets" is not a credible source. I suggest that 'death' be removed from the list of side effects until there is a definitive, credible, scientific source that says it is. Chalky (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article discusses MDMA within several contexts, not all of which are scientific, I really think it would be proper to include the street name of this drug in the article heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.84.230 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The street names are mentioned in the first paragraph. All of XTC (disambiguation), X (disambiguation), and Ecstacy include links to this article. 24.98.1.233 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that "Mandy" is a slang term for MDMA in the UK. There is a citation, but this is weak. I'm 57 and far removed from the dance scene, but I've never heard this term used to refer to MDMA. It is an old British slang term for Mandrax though this drug largely went out of use in the 1970s. This usage is referenced in the Ian Dury song Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick, released in 1978 when recreational MDMA use was largely unknown. --Ef80 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the page notes, it is a common term for the crystalline form of the drug, and is an obvious play on the sound of "MDMA" (e.g. [4]). That the same word was previously used for Mandrax is completely coincidental. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a rather comprehensive list of desired 'subjective' effects on here last I looked; now it has vanished. It seemed very accurate but now it has gone. Has it been forced out or just removed by some fearful personage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.119.108 (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The benzodioxole termination of mdma is shared with piribedil and even paroxetine; may be the benzodioxole a ligand to D2 receptor for an agonist action?

79.41.235.169 (talk)

How are these two chemical structures related? The first one is used as the main image of the article, but the second one is used throughout the article. Are they chemically equivalent? I am a chemistry newbie, but they certainly look different to me. --Farzaneh (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  The main image in the article
• 
  Structure used throughout the article

In organic chemistry the hydrogens are usually not represented while the carbons are represented by an angle. 79.41.235.169 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

79.20.9.3 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please look at the first sentence of the second paragraph? I would like to make sense of it but fall short. "In 2001, responding to a mandate from the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, resulted in an increase in the penalties for MDMA by nearly 3,000%.". Apparently the U.S. Sentencing Commission did something (met, changed a law, etc..) that resulted in the penalty increase. For some reason, "In 2001, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in response to a mandate from the U.S. Congress", ....did something. Otr500 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical paragraph

I removed the paragraph below per the above comments. I do not have access to the references to make sensible corrections so if someone does they can make the corrections and add it back.

• In 2001, responding to a mandate from the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, resulted in an increase in the penalties for MDMA by nearly 3,000%.^[5] The increase in penalties was opposed by the Federation of American Scientists.^[6]The increase makes 1 gram of MDMA (four pills at 250 mg per pill's total weight regardless of purity, standard for Federal charges) equivalent to 1 gram of heroin (approximately fifty doses) or 2.2 pounds (1.00 kg) of cannabis for sentencing purposes at the federal level.^[7] See also the RAVE Act of 2003. Otr500 (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two quotations from the current version:

"Safrole, a colorless or slightly yellow oily liquid, extracted from the root-bark or the fruit of the sassafras tree is the primary precursor for all manufacture of MDMA."

"Safrole is not required for MDMA production, and other precursor chemicals are often used instead, for example piperonal."

This is confusing. Does it mean safrole is the precursor for all MDMA because synthesis may start with other precursors, such as piperonal, which is derived from safrole? Is the second sentence confusing, or the first one in error? Mazoola (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem confusing. Safrole is the preferred precursor, so I guess that would make it the "primary" precursor, but it is not the only possible precursor. Piperonal can be extracted from several plant sources, and you could synthesize it from safrole, but if you were making MDMA starting with safrole, you would not convert it into piperonal. --Thoric (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of normal dose. If someone is caught with 50 grams of extasy is it a lot? How many dose can one make from pure 1 gram of MDMA?--RicHard-59 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4's Drugs Live programme in 2012 used single doses of 83mg in the experiment, which would be almost exactly a twelfth of a gramme, and broadly in line with the average active content in street pills at the time and previously. In the UK someone caught with 50 grammes (i.e. approximately 600 doses, with a street value of at least £2,000) would almost certainly be charged with possession with intent to supply (others), as opposed to simple possession for personal use. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shulgin's notes [5] suggest a dosage of 80-150mg (his experiments range from 60-200mg). I have frequently heard 100mg, which is in agreement and is also a nice round number: 1 gram = 10 doses. Pills typically have a mass around 100mg, but purity varies widely so it's difficult to equate pills to doses. The legal definition of a dose, if used in a criminal prosecution, might be something else entirely but it should be defined in statute or regulation. Simishag (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the 83mg has its origin in it presumably being easier to separate a supposed gramme of powder into twelve "by eye," than it is to divide it into ten. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this statement is a blog post with no references. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/overdoses-of-molly-led-to-electric-zoo-deaths/?_r=0

I personally question the veracity of the statement as well as the appropriateness of using a blog post as the basis of fact in a wikipedia entry. 66.64.59.58 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every account of dance culture and MDMA use in the UK notes that in Europe it surfaced in Ibiza first (e.g. Saunders, C0llin, and Garratt). Even so, there is a difference between a regular blog, and a New York Times blog. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is meaningless, scientific-sounding gabble, and ought to be removed:

"The positive effects were so large as to achieve statistical significance in spite of the small size of the trials (In one study, the rate of clinical response was 10/12 (83%) in the active treatment group versus 2/8 (25%) in the placebo group. In the other study, a p-score of 1.4% was found for the PDS scale and 1.6% for the CAP scale one year after treatment. A p-score of 5% or less is often considered statistically significant, and the effect found needs to be larger with smaller studies to have statistical significance, ceteris paribus, in order to correct for sample size.) In the second study, positive effect in CAP scale immediately after treatment did not achieve statistical significance (p=6.6%), but may do so with a larger sample size. The patients treated with two or three sessions of MDMA-psychotherapy showed greater improvement than the ones treated by placebo-psychotherapy or placebo-inactive dose of MDMA.[18] This improvement was generally maintained on a follow-up several years later." Dratman (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random reflist

Like the title says, I'm going to cut out a lot of the medical content which fails WP:MEDRS and rewrite/resource a few parts. The health effects of MDMA article is redundant with what the article is supposed to include per WP:MEDMOS, so I'm going to merge that article into this one after cutting out its inadequately sourced content. I expect I'll get around to it sometime over the next month or so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Others to add:

• ^[1]
• http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2014.873690 ^[2]
• http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hup.2390 ^[3]
• http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcph.266 ^[4]
• http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/en2014.02.21.9.32.e1128 ^[5]
• http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2013.07.014 ^[6]

Adverse + OD

• ^[7]
• ^[8]

PDynamics

• VMAT2^[9]
• TAAR1^[10]

PKinetics+Toxicity

• ^[11]

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

Please do me a favor and bring something up on the talkpage - either in this thread or a new one - before reverting a change I make. More than likely I intend to rewrite/resource a section if I completely delete one. Content that I remove is usually indicated for a particular reason in an edit summary.

This also isn't the first time I've rapidly rewritten a high-traffic article: e.g., methamphetamine (now a GA) and nootropic. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article (and on previous ones)! DMacks (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Butchering" is the right word, especially as regards the "Legal status" section and particularly the "United Kingdom" subsection. I would note that in the process you deleted everything about the ACMD's recommendations on the reclassification of MDMA (discounting them as "court battles and random controversy"), which seems convenient to the agenda you're apparently pushing. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have virtually no interest in this article topic. If it didn't have abhorrently shitty sources, I wouldn't be editing it. I'm only doing this since I already have a lot of familiarity with MDMA from significantly revising/expanding articles on its pharmacology and on other substituted amphetamines.

A drug legal status section is simply supposed to quickly summarize the global legal status as a controlled substance, with selected countries where editors have supplied supporting citations. It's not a place to cover current perspectives on the legality of drugs. That material would go into a history/society/culture section, and I'm not opposed to covering that material there (without massive blockquotes in the text); that said, I haven't decided whether or not to merge this page's section with history and culture of substituted amphetamines yet though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Seppi that the Legal section was largely a long winded argument that MDMA is over-regulated and was way out of touch with WP:NPOV. The article overall was riddled with advocacy and the use of non-reliable sources (Dancesafe.org???, Ectascydata.org???, theDEA.org??? Seriously?). I think there is room for discussion of specific changes, but the overall need for a cleanup is beyond question.

Seppi has a great track record as an editor of CNS drug related articles and I'm pleased to see him taking this task on. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--83.80.250.145 (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Hallo,[reply]

What I miss in most drug-related texts is the "set". By this I mean to say that it is very important who is taking the drug and under which circumstances. In some cases the effect of the drug can be detrimental and long-lasting. It is like the Jellinek Clinic in Holland in former website articles said: You are your own laboratory rabbit!

Sincerely,

J.P. Clifford

At the beginning of the section MDMA#Long-term effects on serotonin and dopamine, there is a red link that goes to serotonin reuptake transporter. Corresponding articles already exist at serotonin and reuptake transporter (which redirects to monoamine transporter), and it could be fixed. 50.32.195.213 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done AlanS (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

119.93.155.200 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not specified an edit and I have therefore closed the request. - Camyoung54 ^talk 02:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph, second and third lines need to be changed...they confuse ecstasy, pure MDMA, and Molly

MDMA is a chemical.

Molly is **PURE** MDMA that is made to be used as a recreational drug.

Ecstasy is **adulterated** MDMA, usually "cut" with methamphetimines, cocaine, acid, or cheap heroin

MDMA = chemical

Molly = pure MDMA as a recreational drug

Ecstasy = adulterated MDMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.52.34 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]