> That's because having similar names does not make them similar in any way. Well yes, but actually no. Right answer, but the work to get there is a little off

> That's because having similar names does not make them similar in any way. Well yes, but actually no. Right answer, but the work to get there is a little off. MDMA is MethyleneDioxy MethAmphetamine. And MethAMPhetAmine is n-methyl alpha-methyl phenethylamine (chemists love portmanteaus). So it's literally a methamphetamine core with a methylenedioxy bridge. That structural similarity gives MDMA some similarity in activity to MA, which itself works due to its similarly to dopamine and epinephrine. Structural similarities give you a good guess but you really have to test the binding affinities on their own. There are substituted phenethylamines which have barely any activity. MA itself has found therapeutic uses in treating ADHD and narcolepsy. Side note: this is why NO drug should ever be "Schedule I - no medical uses". How can you ever predict a lack of future medical uses? Cannabis, psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, ibogaine, these have all found therapeutic uses, yet are sched I.