7 ms·

This is a nice take on the reality of the middle to upper middle class drug economy. It's not all episodes of the Wire. If you're picking up ecstasy or high-g

by JPKab 13y ago

This is a nice take on the reality of the middle to upper middle class drug economy. It's not all episodes of the Wire. If you're picking up ecstasy or high-grade cannabis, chances are you're doing it like this. I have to admit that I miss MDMA. I haven't touched the stuff in over 10 years, but it was awesome to use once a year or so. I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that I overcame some issues with trusting people and forming human connections as an accidental side effect of wanting to have a good time.

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
Was it the war on drugs what kept you from using it more than once a year or so, or something else?
- JPKab 13y ago
  It was health concerns. I had read and heard that the huge amounts of serotonin released in the brain had no bad effects provided it wasn't too often.
- JamesArgo 13y ago
  The metabolites of MDMA are thought to be neurotoxic. Though it's known the chemical itself is not. In a sane world, we would use drug discovery to find drugs with similar effects but without the toxic metabolites. But we love to punish people for their vices, so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs.
  - atom-morgan 13y ago
    > But we love to punish people for their vices, so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs. And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers.
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      > And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers. I don't think this ("banhammers") is a fair comparison. To my knowledge, most if not all of the major regulation regarding e-cigarettes is around restricting the sale to minors or restricting the areas in which they can be used, as opposed to a blanket ban on the sale or possession of e-cigarettes. All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana[0]. The only difference from marijuana is that we're starting from the other end of the spectrum (zero regulation) instead of starting from a blanket ban, but the theoretical convergence point is the same: use of marijuana and e-cigarettes are permitted, but regulated in some way around the age of purchaser and location (setting) of use. You can make the argument that restricting the use of e-cigarettes indoors (or by minors) is incorrect, but people have been arguing that 18-year-olds should be able to drink (like in the rest of the world)[1] or use marijuana, so the details of the regulation regarding those aren't necessarily perfect or justified either. A better example of "banhammers" would be Salvia divinorum, which was legal in every (or almost every) state ten years ago, and is now prohibited in 8 states (and there were attempts to prohibit it outright, like marijuana, in several more)[2]. [0] in (e.g.) Colorado, where recreational sale and use is permitted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality
      - elohesra 13y ago
        > All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes But this is why e-cigarette campaigners say that politicians are just meddling out of personal distaste, rather than any scientific backing. The two core reasons why cigarettes cannot be smoked indoors are: 1) Doing so (potentially) causes deleterious effects to people who inhale the second-hand smoke. At the very least, it can be agreed that it's not preferable to breathe smoke. 2) It makes it likelier that the smoker will give up their dangerous addiction. Neither case can be particularly easily applied to e-cigarettes, which emit harmless water vapour, and are to many smokers a means of giving up their dangerous smoking addiction. I must say I agree with the e-cigarette campaigners that attempts to apply the same laws to e-cigarettes as cigarettes is just yet another example of politicians wanting to control something absent of any scientific proof that they need to do so.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    And worse people cycle through novel compounds to avoid drugs laws to create "legal highs" which have bery little data to show how safe or not they are. It's weird just how sub optimal current laws are.
  - pantalaimon 13y ago
    > so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs That's not entirely true, MDAI was created as a safer alternative to MDMA, however reports say it's somewhat lacking in the experience.
  - Alex3917 13y ago
    We already have a non-neurotoxic version, it's called MDAI.
- collyw 13y ago
  It doesn't work if you use it too much.
cnp 13y ago
I've personally seen MDMA fix two marriages, with one session each. Its divine stuff. I'm very happy that new studies have been completed or are being planned to further explore the psychotherapeutical side of the drug. But aside from that, I agree. It's the best. No hangover (if it's pure), short duration, music sounds amazing, an amplified sense of intellectual focus and compassion, and good times with friends. You can't ask for anything more from an intoxicant. Its the best.
- kittycow 13y ago
  agreed. I take one whenever i go to a job interview. Without it I'm a stuttering idiot during an interview. where as with ecstasy I turn in to the dos equis beer guy.
  - thathonkey 13y ago
    you probably feel like dos equis beer guy but to the interviewer you just have pupils the size of saucers and can't stop feeling the fabric of your clothes really earnestly
  - CocaKoala 13y ago
    How often to you go to job interviews? If you have lots of them and take MDMA before each one, I think it might not be as helpful as you feel it is.
    - kittycow 13y ago
      good point!
- WarDekar 13y ago
  No hangover? Except for, let's see, a short list: Severely depleted serotonin levels, causing irritability and possibly depression Loss of focus, concentration, and attention (good luck programming competently the day after) Bruxism (jaw clenching/grinding)
  - 13y ago
chimeracoder 13y ago
> This is a nice take on the reality of the middle to upper middle class drug economy. It's not all episodes of the Wire. It may still be there, just slightly beyond the frame of this picture. The article doesn't go into how the drugs actually get across the Canadian border, for example. The show Weeds was unrealistic in some ways, but one thing that the first couple of seasons did reasonably well was to depict Nancy's descent into progressively more dangerous situations and the beginning of her relationship with organized crime. At any appreciable scale, the drug trade[0] gets messy very quickly - not always to the end user, but certainly one or two degrees removed. If it looks clean, either it's because it's a very small scale and vertically integrated (eg, the marijuana equivalent of "microbrew"), or you're just not looking far enough down the supply chain. [0] Of course, this is not a comment on the inherent nature of the drug trade, but on the inherent nature of any illicit trade; legal (or "less illegal") supply and distribution channels will have far less crime associated with them.

by JPKab 13y ago

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago

Was it the war on drugs what kept you from using it more than once a year or so, or something else?

JPKab 13y ago
It was health concerns. I had read and heard that the huge amounts of serotonin released in the brain had no bad effects provided it wasn't too often.
JamesArgo 13y ago
The metabolites of MDMA are thought to be neurotoxic. Though it's known the chemical itself is not. In a sane world, we would use drug discovery to find drugs with similar effects but without the toxic metabolites. But we love to punish people for their vices, so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs.
- atom-morgan 13y ago
  > But we love to punish people for their vices, so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs. And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers. I don't think this ("banhammers") is a fair comparison. To my knowledge, most if not all of the major regulation regarding e-cigarettes is around restricting the sale to minors or restricting the areas in which they can be used, as opposed to a blanket ban on the sale or possession of e-cigarettes. All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana[0]. The only difference from marijuana is that we're starting from the other end of the spectrum (zero regulation) instead of starting from a blanket ban, but the theoretical convergence point is the same: use of marijuana and e-cigarettes are permitted, but regulated in some way around the age of purchaser and location (setting) of use. You can make the argument that restricting the use of e-cigarettes indoors (or by minors) is incorrect, but people have been arguing that 18-year-olds should be able to drink (like in the rest of the world)[1] or use marijuana, so the details of the regulation regarding those aren't necessarily perfect or justified either. A better example of "banhammers" would be Salvia divinorum, which was legal in every (or almost every) state ten years ago, and is now prohibited in 8 states (and there were attempts to prohibit it outright, like marijuana, in several more)[2]. [0] in (e.g.) Colorado, where recreational sale and use is permitted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality
    - elohesra 13y ago
      > All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes But this is why e-cigarette campaigners say that politicians are just meddling out of personal distaste, rather than any scientific backing. The two core reasons why cigarettes cannot be smoked indoors are: 1) Doing so (potentially) causes deleterious effects to people who inhale the second-hand smoke. At the very least, it can be agreed that it's not preferable to breathe smoke. 2) It makes it likelier that the smoker will give up their dangerous addiction. Neither case can be particularly easily applied to e-cigarettes, which emit harmless water vapour, and are to many smokers a means of giving up their dangerous smoking addiction. I must say I agree with the e-cigarette campaigners that attempts to apply the same laws to e-cigarettes as cigarettes is just yet another example of politicians wanting to control something absent of any scientific proof that they need to do so.
- DanBC 13y ago
  And worse people cycle through novel compounds to avoid drugs laws to create "legal highs" which have bery little data to show how safe or not they are. It's weird just how sub optimal current laws are.
- pantalaimon 13y ago
  > so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs That's not entirely true, MDAI was created as a safer alternative to MDMA, however reports say it's somewhat lacking in the experience.
- Alex3917 13y ago
  We already have a non-neurotoxic version, it's called MDAI.
collyw 13y ago
It doesn't work if you use it too much.

cnp 13y ago

I've personally seen MDMA fix two marriages, with one session each. Its divine stuff. I'm very happy that new studies have been completed or are being planned to further explore the psychotherapeutical side of the drug. But aside from that, I agree. It's the best. No hangover (if it's pure), short duration, music sounds amazing, an amplified sense of intellectual focus and compassion, and good times with friends. You can't ask for anything more from an intoxicant. Its the best.

kittycow 13y ago
agreed. I take one whenever i go to a job interview. Without it I'm a stuttering idiot during an interview. where as with ecstasy I turn in to the dos equis beer guy.
- thathonkey 13y ago
  you probably feel like dos equis beer guy but to the interviewer you just have pupils the size of saucers and can't stop feeling the fabric of your clothes really earnestly
- CocaKoala 13y ago
  How often to you go to job interviews? If you have lots of them and take MDMA before each one, I think it might not be as helpful as you feel it is.
  - kittycow 13y ago
    good point!
WarDekar 13y ago
No hangover? Except for, let's see, a short list: Severely depleted serotonin levels, causing irritability and possibly depression Loss of focus, concentration, and attention (good luck programming competently the day after) Bruxism (jaw clenching/grinding)
- 13y ago

chimeracoder 13y ago

> This is a nice take on the reality of the middle to upper middle class drug economy. It's not all episodes of the Wire. It may still be there, just slightly beyond the frame of this picture. The article doesn't go into how the drugs actually get across the Canadian border, for example. The show Weeds was unrealistic in some ways, but one thing that the first couple of seasons did reasonably well was to depict Nancy's descent into progressively more dangerous situations and the beginning of her relationship with organized crime. At any appreciable scale, the drug trade[0] gets messy very quickly - not always to the end user, but certainly one or two degrees removed. If it looks clean, either it's because it's a very small scale and vertically integrated (eg, the marijuana equivalent of "microbrew"), or you're just not looking far enough down the supply chain. [0] Of course, this is not a comment on the inherent nature of the drug trade, but on the inherent nature of any illicit trade; legal (or "less illegal") supply and distribution channels will have far less crime associated with them.