5 ms·

> The key overall is always to not abuse and that should be adressed by education Who is to say what's "abuse" really. Why would taking MDMA in a therapist ch

> The key overall is always to not abuse and that should be adressed by education Who is to say what's "abuse" really. Why would taking MDMA in a therapist chair be "medicine" and taking it and dancing all night long be "abuse"? Because that's how they're going to try and control it. I'm not even sure which would be healthier for you or more effective. Like, obviously there's a point where it's too much, but if you let the "medical establishment" define it, it'll definitely be defined as any point in which people might actually be having fun.

elmomle 3y ago
Nobody in this thread said that taking it to dance all night is abuse; dance can be amazingly cathartic. I've known people who did it nearly daily for long stretches, and others who would only take it once a month and take Prozac after to mitigate and potential damage. I'm not saying that the latter is the only non-abusive way of taking it, but clearly the former would constitute abuse.
- xp84 3y ago
  This is one of the most tragic things to me about psychoactive substances in general. I've had and heard of very significant positive experiences from substances, and yet also, obviously, many people become alcoholics all the time, or become barely-functioning stoners who "wake and bake" every single day and are incapable of really anything anymore. I think it's critical that all of us (however we feel about the 'morality' of doing drugs) have the humility to acknowledge that there isn't any policy "solution" to these problems. These are humanity problems (really, animal problems, since any animal can experience addiction and chemical dependence). It is arguably deeply unfair to prohibit people from experiencing the best that these substances have to offer (and I don't just mean in a therapy setting). But it's also dangerous to "let" them get in over their heads. Unfortunately though, the verb "let" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Even well-meaning and trusted parents aren't able to effectively guarantee their children's safety (either with prohibition or with a more lenient, discussion-based strategy). How much less effective then, is a government which isn't and can't ever be completely trusted by its citizens? No matter what, we won't 'solve' this with some perfect policy.
  - empath-nirvana 3y ago
    > I've had and heard of very significant positive experiences from substances, and yet also, obviously, many people become alcoholics all the time, or become barely-functioning stoners who "wake and bake" every single day and are incapable of really anything anymore. _Almost everyone_ who uses recreational drugs or drinks stops drinking or doing drugs _on their own_ without any intervention. There's this idea that's been propagated that drugs are this evil demon that you can never shake once you get addicted, because for people who deal with drug addicts professionally, _all they ever see_ are people who haven't quit drugs almost by definition. However, those drug addicts are a _small_ percentage of all the people who have used drugs. https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archive/matters-of-substance-november-2014/ageing-out-of-addiction/ https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archi... Drug policy is basically based on the survivorship bias fallacy.
    - kortex 3y ago
      Enlightening article. Indeed, the high comorbidity of substance abuse disorders with other developmental, behavioral, and/or executive function disorders, suggests that a lot of it stems directly from untreated congenital conditions. Often the lack of treatment and exacerbation of the condition stem directly from socioeconomic conditions. In other worlds, well-adjusted people with support networks rarely "get addicted" to drugs (as if they are some sort of cursed potion that anyone who consumes is afflicted).
tempsy 3y ago
Because MDMA is highly neurotoxic if you're not careful with supplementation and do it too often? General rule of thumb is to not even do it more than 1x-2x a year. Even then most people say that it doesn't feel as good over time.
- naasking 3y ago
  The claimed neurotoxicity was based on flawed study that has since been retracted [1]. They mistakenly used methamphetamine instead of MDMA. [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1074501 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1074501
  - tempsy 3y ago
    That is one study from 2002. There's dozens of more recent studies on this subject. By neurotoxicity the question is does frequent use of MDMA make it more difficult for your brain to produce serotonin? Research and anecdotal evidence from recreational users point to this being the case. When your brain becomes dependent on a drug that fries your brain temporarily with serotonin you will not feel as good without the drug if your brain and body becomes dependent on it to trigger normal serotonin production. Doesn't sound like a fun time to me. https://dancesafe.org/drug-information/is-mdma-neurotoxic/#1 https://dancesafe.org/drug-information/is-mdma-neurotoxic/#1
    - fragmede 3y ago
      On the spectrum from never doing it, to every weekend until your brain stops being able to produce serotonin, how often would you recommend as reasonable?
      - tempsy 3y ago
        I'm not claiming I know the long term negative side effects on MDMA use, but like any powerful drug why would I not suspect something that floods your brain with serotonin would not end up in a situation where your brain anticipates the drug and creates an dependency situation where your brain does not produce serotonin in normal levels without it? Anecdotal evidence from long term users in MDMA forums suggest lots of frequent users don't ever feel the same without it. Bizarre we have gotten to the point where the default is "take powerful drug because no scientist has proven not to in a century long twin study!!"
fragmede 3y ago
The "medical establishment" is full of people who like to get high off molly and dance the night away on their weekends. If the medical establishment can say, with science, "this is, chemically speaking, how much you can do, and how often, and here are the supplements to take, so you don't lose the magic", that would be amazing!
- ivarv 3y ago
  While not 100% exactly what you're looking for, Huberman Labs episode on MDMA is pretty close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slUCmZJDXrk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slUCmZJDXrk The "don't lose the magic" supplementation is addressed but it is speculation based on anecdotal evidence and conjecture.
davidguetta 3y ago
Here's a piece of education : MDMA drops your serotonine levels, and they take 6 weeks to fill up. This means that if you take it more than 4 times a year, you spend more than half of your time in a abnormal state. To me you can do it for like a year maybe if you wanna have fun, but staying in that state for more than that is on the edge of abuse. Once again, I support trying MDMA. But most people who do it don't do their research

elmomle 3y ago

Nobody in this thread said that taking it to dance all night is abuse; dance can be amazingly cathartic. I've known people who did it nearly daily for long stretches, and others who would only take it once a month and take Prozac after to mitigate and potential damage. I'm not saying that the latter is the only non-abusive way of taking it, but clearly the former would constitute abuse.

xp84 3y ago
This is one of the most tragic things to me about psychoactive substances in general. I've had and heard of very significant positive experiences from substances, and yet also, obviously, many people become alcoholics all the time, or become barely-functioning stoners who "wake and bake" every single day and are incapable of really anything anymore. I think it's critical that all of us (however we feel about the 'morality' of doing drugs) have the humility to acknowledge that there isn't any policy "solution" to these problems. These are humanity problems (really, animal problems, since any animal can experience addiction and chemical dependence). It is arguably deeply unfair to prohibit people from experiencing the best that these substances have to offer (and I don't just mean in a therapy setting). But it's also dangerous to "let" them get in over their heads. Unfortunately though, the verb "let" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Even well-meaning and trusted parents aren't able to effectively guarantee their children's safety (either with prohibition or with a more lenient, discussion-based strategy). How much less effective then, is a government which isn't and can't ever be completely trusted by its citizens? No matter what, we won't 'solve' this with some perfect policy.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  > I've had and heard of very significant positive experiences from substances, and yet also, obviously, many people become alcoholics all the time, or become barely-functioning stoners who "wake and bake" every single day and are incapable of really anything anymore. _Almost everyone_ who uses recreational drugs or drinks stops drinking or doing drugs _on their own_ without any intervention. There's this idea that's been propagated that drugs are this evil demon that you can never shake once you get addicted, because for people who deal with drug addicts professionally, _all they ever see_ are people who haven't quit drugs almost by definition. However, those drug addicts are a _small_ percentage of all the people who have used drugs. https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archive/matters-of-substance-november-2014/ageing-out-of-addiction/ https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archi... Drug policy is basically based on the survivorship bias fallacy.
  - kortex 3y ago
    Enlightening article. Indeed, the high comorbidity of substance abuse disorders with other developmental, behavioral, and/or executive function disorders, suggests that a lot of it stems directly from untreated congenital conditions. Often the lack of treatment and exacerbation of the condition stem directly from socioeconomic conditions. In other worlds, well-adjusted people with support networks rarely "get addicted" to drugs (as if they are some sort of cursed potion that anyone who consumes is afflicted).

tempsy 3y ago

Because MDMA is highly neurotoxic if you're not careful with supplementation and do it too often? General rule of thumb is to not even do it more than 1x-2x a year. Even then most people say that it doesn't feel as good over time.

naasking 3y ago
The claimed neurotoxicity was based on flawed study that has since been retracted [1]. They mistakenly used methamphetamine instead of MDMA. [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1074501 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1074501
- tempsy 3y ago
  That is one study from 2002. There's dozens of more recent studies on this subject. By neurotoxicity the question is does frequent use of MDMA make it more difficult for your brain to produce serotonin? Research and anecdotal evidence from recreational users point to this being the case. When your brain becomes dependent on a drug that fries your brain temporarily with serotonin you will not feel as good without the drug if your brain and body becomes dependent on it to trigger normal serotonin production. Doesn't sound like a fun time to me. https://dancesafe.org/drug-information/is-mdma-neurotoxic/#1 https://dancesafe.org/drug-information/is-mdma-neurotoxic/#1
  - fragmede 3y ago
    On the spectrum from never doing it, to every weekend until your brain stops being able to produce serotonin, how often would you recommend as reasonable?
    - tempsy 3y ago
      I'm not claiming I know the long term negative side effects on MDMA use, but like any powerful drug why would I not suspect something that floods your brain with serotonin would not end up in a situation where your brain anticipates the drug and creates an dependency situation where your brain does not produce serotonin in normal levels without it? Anecdotal evidence from long term users in MDMA forums suggest lots of frequent users don't ever feel the same without it. Bizarre we have gotten to the point where the default is "take powerful drug because no scientist has proven not to in a century long twin study!!"

fragmede 3y ago

The "medical establishment" is full of people who like to get high off molly and dance the night away on their weekends. If the medical establishment can say, with science, "this is, chemically speaking, how much you can do, and how often, and here are the supplements to take, so you don't lose the magic", that would be amazing!

ivarv 3y ago
While not 100% exactly what you're looking for, Huberman Labs episode on MDMA is pretty close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slUCmZJDXrk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slUCmZJDXrk The "don't lose the magic" supplementation is addressed but it is speculation based on anecdotal evidence and conjecture.

davidguetta 3y ago

Here's a piece of education : MDMA drops your serotonine levels, and they take 6 weeks to fill up. This means that if you take it more than 4 times a year, you spend more than half of your time in a abnormal state. To me you can do it for like a year maybe if you wanna have fun, but staying in that state for more than that is on the edge of abuse. Once again, I support trying MDMA. But most people who do it don't do their research