17 ms·

FDA Agrees to New Trials for MDMA as Relief for PTSD Patients

345 points by victorbojica 10y ago

warcode 10y ago
Calling MDMA "Ecstasy" seems like bad journalism. While Ecstasy should contain MDMA it often has all kinds of other things in it. Nobody would ever allow the use of Ecstasy as a treatment drug.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  As with many illegal street drugs, there is no standard definition of Ecstasy. It's whatever a drug dealer decides to sell you and/or call it It is certainly not bad journalism to call it that. That's what MDMA pills were known as in the late 90's/ early 2000's. Also, call me an old timer, but I refuse to call it Molly
  - m0th87 10y ago
    > It's whatever a drug dealer decides to sell you and/or call it That's the point. Ecstacy does not have a precise definition. MDMA does. Given this is a trial, it should be labeled what it is.
    - spatulon 10y ago
      OK, I have friends of friends who say they take 'MDMA' on a Saturday night out. Is it really pure MDMA, or is it just what we would have called Ecstasy in the past?
      - CoryG89 10y ago
        MDMA (or Molly) usually comes as a cloudy off white crystal or crystalline powder (if broken up). Ecstasy comes as a pressed pill (presumably containing some MDMA, with the possibility of other drugs/adulterants and fillers). The only way to know if they were taking pure MDMA in either case is to test it: Potentially NSFW: https://dancesafe.org/product/complete-set-of-all-8-testing-kits/ https://dancesafe.org/product/complete-set-of-all-8-testing-...
        soundwave106 10y ago
        To be honest, the only way to truly know if one is taking pure MDMA is to run a fairly expensive test (along the lines of GCMS, NMR, or many of the other qualitative analysis). Reagent tests ala what Dancesafe sells are great harm reduction, if the pill fails the test, the pill certainly has 0% MDMA. However, they will not be able to identify that you are taking pure MDMA. I imagine any MDMA+other substance mixture will flag positive. In addition there are probably a few non-MDMA substances that will false-positive that reagent test. There's an organization out there (https://www.ecstasydata.org/ https://www.ecstasydata.org/) that does GCMS analysis of pills, the data on what they find (in terms of ratio of substances) is public. So if you want a bit of a sampling of what type of things get sold as "molly" / "ecstasy" you can look there.
        CoryG89 10y ago
        Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that the results are lab grade quality. To clarify, by "pure MDMA", I did not mean that the substance is 100℅ pure MDMA, but rather that it does not contain other active adulterants. With reagent tests you can be reasonably sure that a given pill does or does not (most likely) contain only MDMA and (most likely) contain no other (common) adulterants. If you want to be sure on the actual amount of MDMA and be absolutely certain it contains nothing else, then you absolutely need a lab test.
        tibbon 10y ago
        Agreed- I've known people to send off samples for GCMS and have a pretty good idea then of what they've got in their hands. It costs money, but if you're worried about safety it is possible. (GCMS doesn't actually cost much to run, places just charge a lot for it.)
        FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
        You're better off just having a reliable supplier who cares about your health because that means continued business for him.
        CoryG89 10y ago
      - EasyTiger_ 10y ago
        I have friends of friends, who have friends (who I NEVER speak to btw) who say that Ecstacy is never just pure MDMA.
        CoryG89 10y ago
        True in the sense that pure MDMA cannot be pressed into a solid tablet alone. It needs to be mixed with fillers/binders to be pressed into a pill and stick together. However, you can find Ecstasy pills that contain nothing but MDMA and inactive fillers/binders.
      - GavinMcG 10y ago
        They may be wrong, technically, and that's fine. A journalist should get it right.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    Where I'm from those old definitions hold true. Molly is MDMA, ecstasy is MDMA and methamphetamine pressed into pill form. If I bought it back in the day and it tested as anything else, I would've gotten my money back.
    - etatoby 10y ago
      You'd get your money back from street pushers. Really.
      - jamiecurle 10y ago
        Anecdotal, but back when I used to use drugs recreationally all of the dealers I used actually placed a very strong emphasis on customer service. Maybe this person has a similar relationship with their supplier. Not all drug deals are conducted from street pushers.
      - mnx 10y ago
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't usually buy drugs like that literally on the street. It's not unthinkable to have an ongoing relation with a dealer enough to be able to return something that doesn't meet your expectations, if you are an important enough client. Not saying it's common, but I think possible.
      - psyc 10y ago
        I'm annoyed by the Hollywood depiction implied by this comment. In my version of "back in the day", all the "street pushers" were some of my closest friends, not grumpy thugs.
      - 3131s 10y ago
        Was not buying from street dealers, and yes I would.
      - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
        If you're dealing with a dealer a bit more upscale than a street pusher, he will have a money back guarantee. It's in his interest since his reputation is everything.
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    I agree that it makes sense for a journalist in the sense that many people do not know what MDMA is, but they have heard of Ecstasy. However, Ecstasy does have negative connotations that pure MDMA does not. The risk of unknown adulterants is probably the biggest danger in taking illicitly obtained Ecstasy tablets. This danger is completely mitigated with pharmaceutical grade MDMA. If you don't like Molly. Please just call it MDMA. Not Ecstasy.
  - legacynl 10y ago
    > That's what MDMA pills were known as in the late 90's/ early 2000's. That means there IS a definition of Ecstacy, the meaning hasn't changed. There are just lots of bad pills in circulation. That's why you should always check pillreports.net before using any untested stuff.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  --
- mdmauser1 10y ago
  Absolutely, a lot of ecstasy tablets tends to have speed in them as well.
- beepboopbeep 10y ago
  The funny/ironic part about calling MDMA Ecstasy is that many dealers can't sell pure MDMA because their clientele expect a stimulant buzz along with the good vibes. People getting pure MDMA often think it's poor quality or cut with something, much to the face-palm of their dealers. Source: Don't worry about it.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    i like your sources :)
- metaphorm 10y ago
  bad journalism is very nearly the only kind being practiced in 2016
- soylentcola 10y ago
  I've always felt the ecstasy/molly/mdma thing (at least in seller/user circles) was more about branding than anything else. In the 90's you'd buy "ecstasy" which theoretically contained MDMA as the sole active ingredient but likely did not. Various cheaper actives and inactives were added to make more money for sellers as you'd expect in an underground market so the term became less trusted. Enter "molly" which implies a more pure product containing only MDMA but still with the potential to be bogus or cut with something else. As with "ecstasy" the only way to tell was to test it. Regardless of the semantics of illicit drug slang, I just hate when purportedly "serious" pieces use slang terms for the drugs in question. Same as when they use "pot" or "marijuana" in place of cannabis. I can't imagine a serious article that discusses medical studies of alcoholic beverages referring to their "booze" and "hooch" studies.
  - drvdevd 10y ago
    From Wikipedia on MDMA:history (and a true story AFAIK -- go see their citations): > Perceiving a business opportunity, Michael Clegg, the Southwest distributor for the Boston Group, started his own "Texas Group" backed financially by Texas friends. In 1981, Clegg had coined "Ecstasy" as a slang term for MDMA to increase its marketability. Mind you, this was before it became illegal. Much like Marijuana, that stupid (but successful) name was probably one of the main reasons it did become so popular, and then illegal, in the first place.
- koolba 10y ago
  > Calling MDMA "Ecstasy" seems like bad journalism. While Ecstasy should contain MDMA it often has all kinds of other things in it. Yes I was expecting "Molly".
mdmauser1 10y ago
Having taken MDMA several times purely for recreational use, it doesn't surprise me at all that used correctly, it could help treat conditions like PTSD. It is an incredibly powerful drug and I genuinely believe since taking MDMA i've been a much more empathetic & loving person. Whilst the high may only last a few hours, you tend to remember the emotions you experienced quite well.
CoryG89 10y ago
The fact that one of the doctors in the article compares the dangers to opioids is misleading or misguided. MDMA has an exceptionally small potential for long term abuse when compared to most other drugs. Despite having studied brain damage in chronic users (not very many of these), I doubt the doctor has ever personally done opiates and MDMA. Anyone who has had any significant experience with both would laugh at the comparison when it comes to potential for abuse.
- DINKDINK 10y ago
  Source?
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    I feel that the first chart/plot on this wiki gives a pretty good estimate on the relative potentials for abuse of various drugs. Note the relative positions of Ecstasy, Cannabis, and Heroin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse PDF for the actual paper containing the chart: https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/Vespiary/talk/files/6416-615_Pharmacology_Therapeutics_NUTT_Rational_Scale_Harm_Drugs_Misuse07ea.pdf https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/Vespiary/talk/fi...
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Spoiler for anyone that doesn't want to click through to the first link: MDMA is apparently roughly the same in physical harm as marijuana, but rates lower on the dependence scale. I did not expect that, but then, I've never done MDMA.
      - rudolf0 10y ago
        That seems highly misleading. I think MDMA is far more physically dangerous than cannabis. Many people have directly died from irresponsible use of MDMA, but no one has (directly) died from any use of cannabis. MDMA can certainly be safe and beneficial if taken responsibility, but: - Doses should generally be spaced at least 2 (many recommend 3) months apart. - The minimum effective dose should be taken. Even a light overdose can create an uncomfortable, traumatizing, or even physically dangerous situation. - Hydration and access to cool environments is important. Overhydration can also be a risk, so it's good to have access to electrolyte-laden drinks (Gatorade etc.). Overhydration, dehydration, and brain overheating are the leading causes of MDMA-related death. - Supplements should be taken to reduce the inherent neurotoxicity even if you do all of the above things right. Some good examples on http://www.rollsafe.org http://www.rollsafe.org. It's true that dependence-wise, cannabis is probably worse, though. It's pretty hard to build a dependence on MDMA, as you'll likely only feel the uncomfortable stimulant effects (and other negative symptoms; this can lead to long-term or permanent neuroreceptor damage and dysfunction) if you take it on a weekly or daily basis.
patrickaljord 10y ago
How about letting consenting adults free of doing what they want to their own body and legalizing all drugs?
- CoryG89 10y ago
  I tend to agree, but I don't think a society should treat all drugs the same. Opiates and crack cocaine are much more dangerous, than say pot or MDMA. If we legalize everything, we need much better drug education in schools. Let's get rid of "Just Say No" and instead actually teach kids to make informed decisions about what they will and will not put in their bodies.
  - jug5 10y ago
    A meaningful education is not something that is widely available in America.
  - theptip 10y ago
    Yes, exactly. And in addition to better education, better counseling and support for addicts (including alcoholics) who have fallen into negative patterns of usage. We could afford a lot of that if we stopped incarcerating people for possession offenses.
  - ep103 10y ago
    There are specific drugs out there, that permanently disable your ability to cognitively function in a reasonable manner. Heroin permanently alters the way your brain measures its dopamine levels. PCP causes all sorts of serious mental harm, same with crack cocaine. These should be regulated the same way we would regulate any other chemical that hard those sorts of toxic affects. But people wouldn't do those drugs, if there were alternatives available that created similar feelings, that were legal. And that's the crux of it. Many drugs have little to no negative affects (compared to nicotine / alcohol), and could be used without horrid ramifications if they were legal and their purity levels were regulated. No one would do crack cocaine, if a legal safer variant of cocaine was available, for example.
tudorw 10y ago
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2008/02/11/breaking-the-drug-taboo-group-of-traumatized-veterans-get-experimental-ecstasy/ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2008/02/11/breaking-the-drug-ta... MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy: How Different is it from Other Psychotherapy? (PDF) http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v23n1/v23n1_p10-14.pdf http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v23n1/v23n1_p10-14.pdf http://www.maps.org/news/media/6230-the-veteran-psychedelics-for-ptsd-what-a-long-strange-trip-it-s-been http://www.maps.org/news/media/6230-the-veteran-psychedelics...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tudorw 10y ago
  In the UK Gulf War Vets are being given psychiatrists, not the treatment they want or has been demonstrated to offer help, it's a fairly shameful situation with a history to match, if we want to go around starting wars we need to factor in the long term costs...
sampple 10y ago
Sounds good. I know that a lot PTSD patients feel that they are neglected.
contingencies 10y ago
Although MDMA was first synthesized by Merck in Darmstadt in Germany in 1914 - https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=DE&NR=279194C&FT=D# https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalD... - apparently nobody has yet erected a museum. Surely it would be a tourist draw in Europe?
phkahler 10y ago
Divorced, alcoholic and at times suicidal, he had tried almost all the accepted treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder: psychotherapy, group therapy and nearly a dozen different medications. Once again I have to advocate for EMDR, which is not mentioned here at all. There are very few accepted treatments. Most drugs will only treat symptoms, not the underlying condition.
- iamatworknow 10y ago
  Link for anyone else who doesn't know what EMDR means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_a...
- Arubis 10y ago
  Personally, I've seen multiple people close to me with trauma histories (some complex) benefit hugely from EMDR. It deserves to be much more widely known and accessible. Other related (and similarly structured) possibilities include brainspotting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainspotting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainspotting) and yoga nidra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_nidra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_nidra). While I'm greatly in favor of studying and using psychoactive substances to help people heal in their lives, they're at most a supportive component in an overall treatment strategy. Our society's preference to just medicate problems away doesn't solve things over the long term.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    Thanks for that. I have seen the benefits of EMDR in others but have had little (but some) success with it for myself. I will look into the other options you mention and may give them a try.
  - filoeleven 10y ago
    > While I'm greatly in favor of studying and using psychoactive substances to help people heal in their lives, they're at most a supportive component in an overall treatment strategy. Our society's preference to just medicate problems away doesn't solve things over the long term. All of these studies are treating the psychedelics as a tool for greatly enhancing therapy. No doctors advocating for their use are suggesting that troubled people should be dropping a bunch of acid at parties on the weekends. The general idea is to work with a patient to understand what their ailments are through talk therapy sessions; then to have a comfortable, controlled setting with doctors and therapists present to help guide the patient through the drug experience, assisting them through any difficult portions; and then to follow up with further sessions of talk therapy. The "LSD will cure the world" craze died out with Timothy Leary, and with good reason--subsequent advocates (albeit with a few exceptions) have been more level-headed about these things acting as consciousness amplifiers that can go flying off in any direction unless they are channeled into helpful ones. The revival of interest that is taking place now follows a much more measured approach.
josscrowcroft 10y ago
From the outside, I'm curious if anybody here has any comment on what effect (if any) a Trump presidency could have on this and related research/progress? In all the noise of the election run, I didn't any position on controlled substances and medical research coming from Trump's side.
dimal 10y ago
> The researchers are so optimistic that they have applied for so-called breakthrough therapy status with the Food and Drug Administration, which would speed the approval process. If approved, the drug could be available by 2021. (my emphasis). The expedited process takes three years. No wonder the only way that most drugs get approved is because the drug is patented and the company that brings them to market can expect huge profits. Existing unpatentable (cheap) drugs usually don't have a backer with deep pockets to go through this process. Our health care market seems to offer perverse incentives at every turn designed to increase cost and decrease effectiveness.
- filoeleven 10y ago
  Much (all?) of this work is being funded by MAPS (www.maps.org), which is a non-profit organization that relies on donations for its continued existence. If this research and advocacy is important to you, please consider donating.

345 points by victorbojica 10y ago

Calling MDMA "Ecstasy" seems like bad journalism. While Ecstasy should contain MDMA it often has all kinds of other things in it. Nobody would ever allow the use of Ecstasy as a treatment drug.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
As with many illegal street drugs, there is no standard definition of Ecstasy. It's whatever a drug dealer decides to sell you and/or call it It is certainly not bad journalism to call it that. That's what MDMA pills were known as in the late 90's/ early 2000's. Also, call me an old timer, but I refuse to call it Molly
- m0th87 10y ago
  > It's whatever a drug dealer decides to sell you and/or call it That's the point. Ecstacy does not have a precise definition. MDMA does. Given this is a trial, it should be labeled what it is.
  - spatulon 10y ago
    OK, I have friends of friends who say they take 'MDMA' on a Saturday night out. Is it really pure MDMA, or is it just what we would have called Ecstasy in the past?
    - CoryG89 10y ago
      MDMA (or Molly) usually comes as a cloudy off white crystal or crystalline powder (if broken up). Ecstasy comes as a pressed pill (presumably containing some MDMA, with the possibility of other drugs/adulterants and fillers). The only way to know if they were taking pure MDMA in either case is to test it: Potentially NSFW: https://dancesafe.org/product/complete-set-of-all-8-testing-kits/ https://dancesafe.org/product/complete-set-of-all-8-testing-...
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        To be honest, the only way to truly know if one is taking pure MDMA is to run a fairly expensive test (along the lines of GCMS, NMR, or many of the other qualitative analysis). Reagent tests ala what Dancesafe sells are great harm reduction, if the pill fails the test, the pill certainly has 0% MDMA. However, they will not be able to identify that you are taking pure MDMA. I imagine any MDMA+other substance mixture will flag positive. In addition there are probably a few non-MDMA substances that will false-positive that reagent test. There's an organization out there (https://www.ecstasydata.org/ https://www.ecstasydata.org/) that does GCMS analysis of pills, the data on what they find (in terms of ratio of substances) is public. So if you want a bit of a sampling of what type of things get sold as "molly" / "ecstasy" you can look there.
        CoryG89 10y ago
        Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that the results are lab grade quality. To clarify, by "pure MDMA", I did not mean that the substance is 100℅ pure MDMA, but rather that it does not contain other active adulterants. With reagent tests you can be reasonably sure that a given pill does or does not (most likely) contain only MDMA and (most likely) contain no other (common) adulterants. If you want to be sure on the actual amount of MDMA and be absolutely certain it contains nothing else, then you absolutely need a lab test.
        tibbon 10y ago
        Agreed- I've known people to send off samples for GCMS and have a pretty good idea then of what they've got in their hands. It costs money, but if you're worried about safety it is possible. (GCMS doesn't actually cost much to run, places just charge a lot for it.)
      - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
        You're better off just having a reliable supplier who cares about your health because that means continued business for him.
        CoryG89 10y ago
    - EasyTiger_ 10y ago
      I have friends of friends, who have friends (who I NEVER speak to btw) who say that Ecstacy is never just pure MDMA.
      - CoryG89 10y ago
        True in the sense that pure MDMA cannot be pressed into a solid tablet alone. It needs to be mixed with fillers/binders to be pressed into a pill and stick together. However, you can find Ecstasy pills that contain nothing but MDMA and inactive fillers/binders.
    - GavinMcG 10y ago
      They may be wrong, technically, and that's fine. A journalist should get it right.
- 3131s 10y ago
  Where I'm from those old definitions hold true. Molly is MDMA, ecstasy is MDMA and methamphetamine pressed into pill form. If I bought it back in the day and it tested as anything else, I would've gotten my money back.
  - etatoby 10y ago
    You'd get your money back from street pushers. Really.
    - jamiecurle 10y ago
      Anecdotal, but back when I used to use drugs recreationally all of the dealers I used actually placed a very strong emphasis on customer service. Maybe this person has a similar relationship with their supplier. Not all drug deals are conducted from street pushers.
    - mnx 10y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't usually buy drugs like that literally on the street. It's not unthinkable to have an ongoing relation with a dealer enough to be able to return something that doesn't meet your expectations, if you are an important enough client. Not saying it's common, but I think possible.
    - psyc 10y ago
      I'm annoyed by the Hollywood depiction implied by this comment. In my version of "back in the day", all the "street pushers" were some of my closest friends, not grumpy thugs.
    - 3131s 10y ago
      Was not buying from street dealers, and yes I would.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
      If you're dealing with a dealer a bit more upscale than a street pusher, he will have a money back guarantee. It's in his interest since his reputation is everything.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  I agree that it makes sense for a journalist in the sense that many people do not know what MDMA is, but they have heard of Ecstasy. However, Ecstasy does have negative connotations that pure MDMA does not. The risk of unknown adulterants is probably the biggest danger in taking illicitly obtained Ecstasy tablets. This danger is completely mitigated with pharmaceutical grade MDMA. If you don't like Molly. Please just call it MDMA. Not Ecstasy.
- legacynl 10y ago
  > That's what MDMA pills were known as in the late 90's/ early 2000's. That means there IS a definition of Ecstacy, the meaning hasn't changed. There are just lots of bad pills in circulation. That's why you should always check pillreports.net before using any untested stuff.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
--
mdmauser1 10y ago
Absolutely, a lot of ecstasy tablets tends to have speed in them as well.
beepboopbeep 10y ago
The funny/ironic part about calling MDMA Ecstasy is that many dealers can't sell pure MDMA because their clientele expect a stimulant buzz along with the good vibes. People getting pure MDMA often think it's poor quality or cut with something, much to the face-palm of their dealers. Source: Don't worry about it.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  i like your sources :)
metaphorm 10y ago
bad journalism is very nearly the only kind being practiced in 2016
soylentcola 10y ago
I've always felt the ecstasy/molly/mdma thing (at least in seller/user circles) was more about branding than anything else. In the 90's you'd buy "ecstasy" which theoretically contained MDMA as the sole active ingredient but likely did not. Various cheaper actives and inactives were added to make more money for sellers as you'd expect in an underground market so the term became less trusted. Enter "molly" which implies a more pure product containing only MDMA but still with the potential to be bogus or cut with something else. As with "ecstasy" the only way to tell was to test it. Regardless of the semantics of illicit drug slang, I just hate when purportedly "serious" pieces use slang terms for the drugs in question. Same as when they use "pot" or "marijuana" in place of cannabis. I can't imagine a serious article that discusses medical studies of alcoholic beverages referring to their "booze" and "hooch" studies.
- drvdevd 10y ago
  From Wikipedia on MDMA:history (and a true story AFAIK -- go see their citations): > Perceiving a business opportunity, Michael Clegg, the Southwest distributor for the Boston Group, started his own "Texas Group" backed financially by Texas friends. In 1981, Clegg had coined "Ecstasy" as a slang term for MDMA to increase its marketability. Mind you, this was before it became illegal. Much like Marijuana, that stupid (but successful) name was probably one of the main reasons it did become so popular, and then illegal, in the first place.
koolba 10y ago
> Calling MDMA "Ecstasy" seems like bad journalism. While Ecstasy should contain MDMA it often has all kinds of other things in it. Yes I was expecting "Molly".

mdmauser1 10y ago

Having taken MDMA several times purely for recreational use, it doesn't surprise me at all that used correctly, it could help treat conditions like PTSD. It is an incredibly powerful drug and I genuinely believe since taking MDMA i've been a much more empathetic & loving person. Whilst the high may only last a few hours, you tend to remember the emotions you experienced quite well.

CoryG89 10y ago

The fact that one of the doctors in the article compares the dangers to opioids is misleading or misguided. MDMA has an exceptionally small potential for long term abuse when compared to most other drugs. Despite having studied brain damage in chronic users (not very many of these), I doubt the doctor has ever personally done opiates and MDMA. Anyone who has had any significant experience with both would laugh at the comparison when it comes to potential for abuse.

DINKDINK 10y ago
Source?
- CoryG89 10y ago
  I feel that the first chart/plot on this wiki gives a pretty good estimate on the relative potentials for abuse of various drugs. Note the relative positions of Ecstasy, Cannabis, and Heroin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse PDF for the actual paper containing the chart: https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/Vespiary/talk/files/6416-615_Pharmacology_Therapeutics_NUTT_Rational_Scale_Harm_Drugs_Misuse07ea.pdf https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/Vespiary/talk/fi...
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Spoiler for anyone that doesn't want to click through to the first link: MDMA is apparently roughly the same in physical harm as marijuana, but rates lower on the dependence scale. I did not expect that, but then, I've never done MDMA.
    - rudolf0 10y ago
      That seems highly misleading. I think MDMA is far more physically dangerous than cannabis. Many people have directly died from irresponsible use of MDMA, but no one has (directly) died from any use of cannabis. MDMA can certainly be safe and beneficial if taken responsibility, but: - Doses should generally be spaced at least 2 (many recommend 3) months apart. - The minimum effective dose should be taken. Even a light overdose can create an uncomfortable, traumatizing, or even physically dangerous situation. - Hydration and access to cool environments is important. Overhydration can also be a risk, so it's good to have access to electrolyte-laden drinks (Gatorade etc.). Overhydration, dehydration, and brain overheating are the leading causes of MDMA-related death. - Supplements should be taken to reduce the inherent neurotoxicity even if you do all of the above things right. Some good examples on http://www.rollsafe.org http://www.rollsafe.org. It's true that dependence-wise, cannabis is probably worse, though. It's pretty hard to build a dependence on MDMA, as you'll likely only feel the uncomfortable stimulant effects (and other negative symptoms; this can lead to long-term or permanent neuroreceptor damage and dysfunction) if you take it on a weekly or daily basis.

patrickaljord 10y ago

How about letting consenting adults free of doing what they want to their own body and legalizing all drugs?

CoryG89 10y ago
I tend to agree, but I don't think a society should treat all drugs the same. Opiates and crack cocaine are much more dangerous, than say pot or MDMA. If we legalize everything, we need much better drug education in schools. Let's get rid of "Just Say No" and instead actually teach kids to make informed decisions about what they will and will not put in their bodies.
- jug5 10y ago
  A meaningful education is not something that is widely available in America.
- theptip 10y ago
  Yes, exactly. And in addition to better education, better counseling and support for addicts (including alcoholics) who have fallen into negative patterns of usage. We could afford a lot of that if we stopped incarcerating people for possession offenses.
- ep103 10y ago
  There are specific drugs out there, that permanently disable your ability to cognitively function in a reasonable manner. Heroin permanently alters the way your brain measures its dopamine levels. PCP causes all sorts of serious mental harm, same with crack cocaine. These should be regulated the same way we would regulate any other chemical that hard those sorts of toxic affects. But people wouldn't do those drugs, if there were alternatives available that created similar feelings, that were legal. And that's the crux of it. Many drugs have little to no negative affects (compared to nicotine / alcohol), and could be used without horrid ramifications if they were legal and their purity levels were regulated. No one would do crack cocaine, if a legal safer variant of cocaine was available, for example.

tudorw 10y ago

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2008/02/11/breaking-the-drug-taboo-group-of-traumatized-veterans-get-experimental-ecstasy/ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2008/02/11/breaking-the-drug-ta... MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy: How Different is it from Other Psychotherapy? (PDF) http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v23n1/v23n1_p10-14.pdf http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v23n1/v23n1_p10-14.pdf http://www.maps.org/news/media/6230-the-veteran-psychedelics-for-ptsd-what-a-long-strange-trip-it-s-been http://www.maps.org/news/media/6230-the-veteran-psychedelics...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tudorw 10y ago
In the UK Gulf War Vets are being given psychiatrists, not the treatment they want or has been demonstrated to offer help, it's a fairly shameful situation with a history to match, if we want to go around starting wars we need to factor in the long term costs...

sampple 10y ago

Sounds good. I know that a lot PTSD patients feel that they are neglected.

contingencies 10y ago

Although MDMA was first synthesized by Merck in Darmstadt in Germany in 1914 - https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=DE&NR=279194C&FT=D# https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalD... - apparently nobody has yet erected a museum. Surely it would be a tourist draw in Europe?

phkahler 10y ago

Divorced, alcoholic and at times suicidal, he had tried almost all the accepted treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder: psychotherapy, group therapy and nearly a dozen different medications. Once again I have to advocate for EMDR, which is not mentioned here at all. There are very few accepted treatments. Most drugs will only treat symptoms, not the underlying condition.

iamatworknow 10y ago
Link for anyone else who doesn't know what EMDR means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_a...
Arubis 10y ago
Personally, I've seen multiple people close to me with trauma histories (some complex) benefit hugely from EMDR. It deserves to be much more widely known and accessible. Other related (and similarly structured) possibilities include brainspotting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainspotting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainspotting) and yoga nidra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_nidra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_nidra). While I'm greatly in favor of studying and using psychoactive substances to help people heal in their lives, they're at most a supportive component in an overall treatment strategy. Our society's preference to just medicate problems away doesn't solve things over the long term.
- phkahler 10y ago
  Thanks for that. I have seen the benefits of EMDR in others but have had little (but some) success with it for myself. I will look into the other options you mention and may give them a try.
- filoeleven 10y ago
  > While I'm greatly in favor of studying and using psychoactive substances to help people heal in their lives, they're at most a supportive component in an overall treatment strategy. Our society's preference to just medicate problems away doesn't solve things over the long term. All of these studies are treating the psychedelics as a tool for greatly enhancing therapy. No doctors advocating for their use are suggesting that troubled people should be dropping a bunch of acid at parties on the weekends. The general idea is to work with a patient to understand what their ailments are through talk therapy sessions; then to have a comfortable, controlled setting with doctors and therapists present to help guide the patient through the drug experience, assisting them through any difficult portions; and then to follow up with further sessions of talk therapy. The "LSD will cure the world" craze died out with Timothy Leary, and with good reason--subsequent advocates (albeit with a few exceptions) have been more level-headed about these things acting as consciousness amplifiers that can go flying off in any direction unless they are channeled into helpful ones. The revival of interest that is taking place now follows a much more measured approach.

josscrowcroft 10y ago

From the outside, I'm curious if anybody here has any comment on what effect (if any) a Trump presidency could have on this and related research/progress? In all the noise of the election run, I didn't any position on controlled substances and medical research coming from Trump's side.

dimal 10y ago

> The researchers are so optimistic that they have applied for so-called breakthrough therapy status with the Food and Drug Administration, which would speed the approval process. If approved, the drug could be available by 2021. (my emphasis). The expedited process takes three years. No wonder the only way that most drugs get approved is because the drug is patented and the company that brings them to market can expect huge profits. Existing unpatentable (cheap) drugs usually don't have a backer with deep pockets to go through this process. Our health care market seems to offer perverse incentives at every turn designed to increase cost and decrease effectiveness.

filoeleven 10y ago
Much (all?) of this work is being funded by MAPS (www.maps.org), which is a non-profit organization that relies on donations for its continued existence. If this research and advocacy is important to you, please consider donating.