8 ms·
The DEA failure that prevented a potentially major medical breakthrough
- asnyder 12y agoI highly recommend watching Peter Jenning's informative and entertaining documentary "Ecstasy Rising" which outlines much of what this article describes but with a bit more investigatory goodness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpFqJcJcps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpFqJcJcps
- andrewtbham 12y agoI also recommend this video... about recent studies about using mdma to treat ptsd. http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5664700/ecstatic-states-mdma-ptsd-treatment-video http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5664700/ecstatic-states-md... I donated money to this mdma study. You get a copy of the book this article was excerpted from for some donations. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/legalizing-psychedelic-therapy https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/legalizing-psychedelic-th...
- jpatokal 12y agoSo administering meth instead of MDMA was a colossal fuckup, but why is that a "colossal DEA failure"? The fault seems to lie squarely with the researcher in question and/or their supplier, unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that the DEA was behind switching the drugs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_A._Ricaurte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_A._Ricaurte
- joesmo 12y agoThe DEA is the most likely suspect to have switched the MDMA as they had the biggest interest (motive) to. If it was Ricaurte, it was likely at the behest of the DEA.
- biot 12y agoI'm guessing this is the first DEA failure: "in 1985 ... the Drug Enforcement Administration declared MDMA a Schedule I drug — a drug with a high potential for abuse and no medical use. A Schedule I designation made MDMA use criminal and research into its therapeutic potential virtually impossible." That, and: "As Mithoefer told Doblin in an email, 'When I asked him if he could tell me anything about what the concerns were, he would say only that they had to do with ‘safety.’' Which was odd, and disturbing. It was the job of the FDA and the IRB to determine if the study was safe, not the DEA. The role of the DEA in approving a Schedule I license was solely to ascertain that the drug could be secured from theft and distributed in accordance with the research protocol." The DEA overstepped their mandate in interfering with the approval process for use of the Schedule I drug when they questioned its safety, which is the role of the FDA and the review board.
- chroma 12y agoIf you haven't tried MDMA, I strongly recommend it.[1] I've used it twice in the past six years, and it has completely changed how I interact with others. Rolling on MDMA drastically curbed my social phobias. All of my negative social emotions: my neuroticism, my self-consciousness, even bitter emotions such as envy; all of them disappeared on MDMA. Afterwards, I felt as if I'd been cured of a mental illness. While I'm certainly not as outgoing and selfless as I would be on MDMA, I've moved my typical behavior closer toward that. It has made me a healthier, happier human being. More importantly, my interactions help others much more than they used to. It is a tragedy that some parts of the US government try so hard to restrict this drug. I fully agree that it is a powerful, dangerous drug. Still, for most purposes, the benefits almost certainly outweigh the harms. I think future generations will look back on this as a moral failing of our time. 1. In moderation, of course, and mega-caveats for anyone who has a family history of schizophrenia. MDMA is not good for your brain. However, I think for many people it may be necessary to use the drug to open a figurative door. I wish better drugs existed, but research in the field has been stifled.
- nether 12y agoI've taken MDMA twice. Both were awesome experiences, but I reverted 100% to my socially anxious state within 48 hours of the roll. I was never able to carry the lessons and mental state from my MDMA trips into sober, waking life. Also, the second trip's good vibes were greatly diminished from the first.
- pantalaimon 12y agoIt really helps to roll with friends whom you really like, but just can't express that usually. On MDMA you can talk about all things, even those that normally scare you, those where you are afraid - but your friends will understand. Once you've been to that place you can still return to it when sober, because you know the compassion was real. This can really crush your insecurities.
- Camillo 12y agoIs there any evidence of MDMA making users better people, other than self reports? For each individual who says psychedelics have made them a better person, there are hundreds who make the same claim about religion. And I think we can all agree that the risk of biological side effects is much lower with religion. If I were going to follow your advice and try MDMA, shouldn't I follow my father's advice and try religion first?
- eksith 12y agoI often wonder if our civilization is in some sort of false vacuum. While it's true our lives are better than in the Middle Ages, stories like this and the myriad of misconceptions and outright lies that follow cannabis really demonstrate, superstition still rules law. We've clothed ourselves in technology, but not wisdom.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoOf course. We exist in a world that has benefited greatly from and been transformed by a more "enlightened" world view (one that is accepting and embraces scientific principles), but at the same time it largely rejects that world view, with abundant evidence everywhere. We think we are sophisticated and advanced but there's only a skim of sophostication on top of our primitivism. Look at our criminal justice system, which makes a mockery of justice, perverts society, and embraces medieval ideas about punishment, retribution, and suffering. You see similar things everywhere you look. The idea of rule of law, then the subversion of law with favoritism for the powerful. And so on. We don't notice much of this because we see the good, which to be fair is important and nevertheless real, and ignore the bad because it has become familiar (or worse, it is familiar but we dismiss it as being exceptional, like sexual violence or police corruption).
- eksith 12y agoExtremely well put!
- wpietri 12y agoWell, we're made out of meat, so I try not to expect too much. We'll always be savannah survival machines, at least until we do a lot of genetic self-engineering. Superstition is a survival trait. But don't knock the technology piece. Humans may not be very good at thinking, but we're definitely better at it when we're safe, warm, and well fed. Especially so if that's what we've had a lifetime of. Maybe this is a little too engineer-y of me, but I think if we want wisdom, we have to construct environments where people naturally produce wisdom.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
- imperio59 12y agoAre you kidding me? LSD/Acid lodges itself in fatty tissue and can cause people to re-experience acid trips at random when those acid crystals dislodge themselves years later... If you want to really fuck up your life then go ahead and take LSD. Can you imagine years after taking a drug and driving down the interstate and having a flashback and getting into an accident? What about holding your 3-month old and dropping them because you just had an acid flashback?! This is total BS. People who are stressed out need better nutrition, sleep, and to get people who are stressing them out off their backs. What they DON'T need is an acid trip.
- dlss 12y agoSource re: fatty tissue?
- chroma 12y agoI'm not sure where you heard it, but your your statement regarding flashbacks and "crystals dislodging" is simply incorrect. Judging by your submissions[1], you are not a fan of many drugs. While this position is understandable, I think it is mistaken. Drugs such as LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin allow us to achieve mind-states that would otherwise require years (if not decades) of dedicated meditation. Most of the people who have used psychedelics (including myself) are better for it. I can't say the same for nicotine and alcohol. Psychedelics benefit humanity much more than they hurt it. It is comically inconsistent to jail users of psychedelics while merely taxing nicotine and alcohol addicts. The harm caused by the latter is much, much worse than the harm caused by the former. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=imperio59 https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=imperio59
- jrapdx3 12y agoFWIW I just got home from a professional meeting at which a topic was the pros and cons of cannabis legalization (as in WA or CO). The relevant part of that presentation was the potential real therapeutic value of some of the 400 or so component compounds resident in the natural botanical plant material. The problem was that studying the possible effects is impeded by the requirement for special permission to use cannabis (or fraction thereof), since its a Schedule 1 drug. Furthermore, the only legal source of cannabis is that which the federal government supplies (grown in Mississippi), which is very limited. That's a shame since preliminary studies suggest certain compounds in the plant may indeed have therapeutic applications. Other countries have gone further in studying cannabis (Israel was mentioned by the presenter), but until the DEA policy changes, study will remain minimal in the US. Unfortunately, removing restrictions in individual states is not very helpful since cannabis preparations produced in one state can't legally be shipped to other states, a severely inhibiting factor for medical research. Similarly, risks and benefits of MDMA have had minimal systematic evaluation. Anecdotal reports are not considered "evidence" in the world of science, as everyone reading here should know. The only way certain drugs will be studied is to work toward changing DEA policy, there's no getting around it.
- GFischer 12y agoCould it be an opportunity for my country (Uruguay) to host large-scale studies on marijuana? (100% legal here, though it's likely the next government will backtrack at least a little) What would we need to make it happen?
- jrapdx3 12y agoUsually a researcher takes an interest in a topic and champions the cause. Often the biggest problem is funding. Government or pharmaceutical industry are common funding sources, sometimes private foundations are also sponsors of studies. In any case, political savvy is the defining characteristic of successful leaders in science as it is anywhere else. I think what eventually allows new ideas to take hold is having the rigorous studies producing "air-tight" results. I always say it's hard to argue with facts. Once it's clear that "this stuff really works", others jump on board spurring all kinds of related offshoots and new studies. That's why it takes a tenacious and courageous leader to advocate for the "cause" of basic or foundational clinical research. "Spontaneously acceleration" happens if it turns out there's money to be made, but that may be way, way down the road.
- bsaul 12y agoBefore young people here start harlem shaking their brain, remember that if you're here, there's a high chance that your brain is your work tool. It's what you make your living with. So take good care of it, and be cautious. I don't know a drug smart enough to recognize bad memories from good ones. Most of those Dr Frankenstein's pills effects have been found by random, and as this article shows research on effects is very much a work in progress.
- Nanzikambe 12y agoI think you misunderstand the point of MDMA in therapy, it doesn't need to distinguish between "bad" or "good" memories, you do that. The substance simply serves to ensure that you can begin to introspect on those experiences that you might otherwise recoil from, or that might otherwise cause you to sink deeper. Think of it as a person or maybe a place of total benevolence and safety in all respects, within which nothing can hurt you and everything nurtures you. From that place you can begin to heal yourself. Let me re-iterate that, you do the healing. The substance just provides the ideal setting.
- aidos 12y agoAdditionally, they're not used in the same way recreationally at all. There's no therapy sessions delving deep into old suppressed memories; it's not a comparable environment at all.
- pantalaimon 12y agoWhy do you think talking with friends can not provide a similar environment?
- aidos 12y agoIt could, of course, but it's highly unlikely. The reality is that most common MDMA taking environments there will be very little psychoanalysis going on. Though, I was commenting more on the implication that taking MDMA will be an experience around memories and exploring them - "I don't know a drug smart enough to recognize bad memories from good ones." MDMA will not suddenly bring up memories (good or bad) to haunt you. It will in all likelyhood invoke strong feelings of empathy and love for the people around you :)
- SeanDav 12y agoThat last line is just astounding: The drug that had been “mislabeled” as MDMA and proven so horribly toxic that it had stopped Michael’s study cold; the drug that was far more toxic than actual MDMA, methamphetamine, already was a prescription medicine.
- themartorana 12y agoThey did the same thing to research in to Ibogaine. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929313.900-mindaltering-drug-could-offer-life-free-of-heroin.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929313.900-mindalter...