3 ms·
So 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 q
by jpatokal 12y ago
So 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.