Ecstasy not dangerous, say scientists

I'm not sure what your back ground is in chemistry, but there really isn't a big difference in the chemical structure of all these drugs. (More schematics here)

If you look close you'll see the MDMA has an extra methyldioxy "ring" (left on the image, oxygen is colored red) attached to the main phenyl ring. Now look to the right on the image and you'll see a blue part. The "blue dot" is nitrogen (an amino group). Now if you look closely between the amphetamine and the methamphetamine, you see a difference at the "blue dot," representing a "methyl" group (obviously where the name "methamphetamines" arises from). The differences seen in methamphetamine vs. amphetamine (the methyl group) are exactly the same between MDMA and MDA, respectively.

Both MDA and methamphetamine are known to be neurotoxic, so they are not used. The jury is still out on how bad MDMA is on the brain (probably not good though), and amphetamine, I believe is not too bad for the brain in small doses. It will keep you up - mimics adrenaline in many ways.

I think MDMA could be quite beneficial to therapy on a VERY conservative basis - maybe as a last resort to people who have a hard time opening up. I have personal recreational experience with MDMA in the past, and I will tell you that I've never experienced anything that allowed me to not only get in touch with my feelings but also to express these feelings very easily and comfortably. However, due to the possible nuerotoxicity and possible depression after usage, I don't think MDMA should be used often on people as a therapy.

Wow thanks for the reply.

I'm don't have too great a background in chemistry, I wish I took more courses in college on it, but I understand the basics.

I think MDMA could be quite beneficial to therapy on a VERY conservative basis - maybe as a last resort to people who have a hard time opening up. I have personal recreational experience with MDMA in the past, and I will tell you that I've never experienced anything that allowed me to not only get in touch with my feelings but also to express these feelings very easily and comfortably. However, due to the possible nuerotoxicity and possible depression after usage, I don't think MDMA should be used often on people as a therapy.

From my experience I totally agree with you on the effects. I think that a one time use for something like marriage counseling would be beneficial with extremely minimal risk.

Several years ago my brother and I had a falling out and we both had held grudges for some time, and it was during one such experience that I realized what a pointless thing that was and worked to make amends, for which I am glad to this day.

BTW, I saw that you are a med student in your profile. My dad is a physician, a psychiatrist in fact.

From my experience I totally agree with you on the effects. I think that a one time use for something like marriage counseling would be beneficial with extremely minimal risk.

I agree too. MDMA could be quite beneficial in the right cases. I would hope that through counseling that a couple could learn to express themselves without the use of outside substances. Interestingly enough, my entire perceptions on life, the universe, and everything changed after my first experience with MDMA. I think everyone could benefit from a single experience with MDMA regardless. My biggest concern would be using the drug as a crutch. However, we'll never really know until the Fed's ease up and let experimentation with MDMA begin again.

My brother and myself also let "by gones be by gones" after our MDMA experience together. He's my best friend to this day because of it. I also relaized that the woman I was planning on marrying was not right for me. We never "rolled" together, but I knew while I was "rolling" that I didn't ever want to roll with her. It made me think and consider the relationship.

I don't want this to sound like a blanket endorsement of MDMA because it's not. MDMA is a HARD drug - no "if's, and's, or but's" about it, and I think dangerous is in high amounts. You will "fry" yourself if you use too much or too often. Although, I haven't personally noted any cognitive dysfuntion from my relatively limited usage. I have friends who are not quite the same because of their drugs usage (which was not only limited to MDMA). There are REAL benefits from MDMA, but wether these benefits are worth the possible risks should be left up to the individual no the governemnt.

How does your father like his specialty? I've considered the option of psychiatry, but still have a few years before I make up my mind.

Good News For The Day

‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me. For I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.’ (Matthew 11:29+30)

"To those who are wearied by hard and unrewarding usage, Jesus offers relief. Yet we see that it is not rest in the form of complete cessation of obligation. Jesus rest from the yoke that galls lies in acceptance of another yoke of service-his. There is a rest for tired spirits, that can only be had along the road of service. Jesus teaches that that there can be no succor for the toils of despairing effort, apart from effort of another kind-effort springing out of a new and different relationship."

"Jesus rest does not liberate us from a sense of the seriousness of sin. Rather, we are taught by him that sin is more virulent, and dangerous than we had ever dreamt. He takes us on a tour through the neighborhood of our own soul, and there discloses vast tracts of evil we had not thought were there."

"Instead of a cheap escapism, Jesus delivers us from the discouragement of bad religion, and other poor moral guardians, by asking us to come with him and bear the load that love laid on his back. The paradox of Jesus is that love is always heavy-laden. Yet it is precisely this willingness to bear, that makes the yoke of Christ light."

"If we are not yoked with Jesus, we shall have to wear the yoke of... other value systems---which may appear to ask little of us, but which in fact leave us guilty, remorseful, drained of hope, and joy."

Thanks, I think . . . Any particular reason you felt I needed to see this?

Interestingly enough, my entire perceptions on life, the universe, and everything changed after my first experience with MDMA.

I feel the same way about LSD. It was the most profound experience of my life.

I think everyone could benefit from a single experience with MDMA regardless.

I would agree with that, but I wouldn't say the same for LSD.

My biggest concern would be using the drug as a crutch. However, we'll never really know until the Fed's ease up and let experimentation with MDMA begin again.

I think progress is being made on that end. Check out the previous link I posted. http://www.maps.org

My brother and myself also let "by gones be by gones" after our MDMA experience together. He's my best friend to this day because of it. I also relaized that the woman I was planning on marrying was not right for me. We never "rolled" together, but I knew while I was "rolling" that I didn't ever want to roll with her. It made me think and consider the relationship.

I can beleive it. It really allows you to face facts honestly.

I don't want this to sound like a blanket endorsement of MDMA because it's not. MDMA is a HARD drug - no "if's, and's, or but's" about it, and I think dangerous is in high amounts. You will "fry" yourself if you use too much or too often. Although, I haven't personally noted any cognitive dysfuntion from my relatively limited usage. I have friends who are not quite the same because of their drugs usage (which was not only limited to MDMA). There are REAL benefits from MDMA, but wether these benefits are worth the possible risks should be left up to the individual no the governemnt.

I couldn't agree more.

How does your father like his specialty?

I think he's happy with it. It's definately an intersting field. My dad works for a state hospital and most of his career has been as a forensic psychiatrist.

He is a Palestenian immigrant and felt that working for the state was giving back to America.

I've considered the option of psychiatry, but still have a few years before I make up my mind.

Well if I were to become a physician that would definately be the area. I think it's fascinating stuff. There is certainly the opportunity for a medical doctor to have a significant impact on fostering an environment where the appropriate use of psychdelics could occur.

I think we are wakeing up from the hysterical backlash to the "drug culture"'s massive abuse of drugs. I think that psychdelic drugs can have a positive role to play in individual's lives and we are at a point in history where a medical doctor could play a major role in that regard.

I would highly encourage you to consider that posibility if you are so inclined.

Before I used LSD, I was an athiest (and incidentially a liberal).

After my experience with LSD (several years ago) I developed a beleif in God and just recently (a couple of months ago) became a born-again Christian.

From the little I know about the bible, which I'm reading now - God never condemned the use of psychotropic substances which have been in use by man since the beginning.

Being a drunk is a sin, being a drug abuser (as I have been in the past) is a sin - but I personally do not beleive that the act of using a drug responsibly is not.

Jesus made the water into wine at the wedding for a crowd that was already inebriated for example. Would Jesus aid people in sinning?

Again, I'm still reading and learning about the bible, so please point out if I'm wrong in any of that.

I quit my frequent use of drugs recreationally, because I recognize that mindless self-gratification is a sin, I don't know that I will never smoke pot in the future but I will not abuse it as I have in the past.

I use to be for legalization merely to get the crime and the big bucks out of the drug trade. However, I finally decided I did not want to pay taxes to support all those drug addicted maligners who won't or can't work because they have to do drugs. I don't want to pay for raising their children or for agencies to come in and be sure the children are fed or are not murdered in a drug induced state by their loving mother and father.

I finally decided that since we can't depend on people to be smart enough to know that drugs are slave masters that will rule the lives of those opening the gate from then on, how would it help to make the slave master's product cheaper so more people could use their deep intellect to CHOOSE to willfully live their lives looking for the next fix?

This society needs productive healthy people - not dopeheads draining society.

202 posted on 9/3/02 1:53 PM Pacific by ClancyJ

I use to be for legalization merely to get the crime and the big bucks out of the drug trade. However, I finally decided I did not want to pay taxes to support all those drug addicted maligners who won't or can't work because they have to do drugs. I don't want to pay for raising their children or for agencies to come in and be sure the children are fed or are not murdered in a drug induced state by their loving mother and father.

Well of course I completely agree with you that we are not responsible as taxpayer for the costs of drug abuse.

But as a matter of costs, treatment is far far cheaper then the drug war, and further a legal alternative would generate revenue to more then offset these costs.

But most importantly all the avaialbe data indicates we will have far less drug abuse under legalization. There is a financial incentive to get people hooked on drugs under prohibition not to mention the understated appeal of forbidden fruit to young people.

Drug prohibition doesn't keep anyone from doing drugs - it maximizes our costs on many levels.

I finally decided that since we can't depend on people to be smart enough to know that drugs are slave masters that will rule the lives of those opening the gate from then on, how would it help to make the slave master's product cheaper so more people could use their deep intellect to CHOOSE to willfully live their lives looking for the next fix?

The drug war doesn't prevent people who want to abuse drugs from abusing them.

At any rate legalization doesn't necessarily need to make them cheaper - they could charge black market prices reaping enormous tax revenues. However that would leave the problem of people commiting crime to pay for their addiction but at least we would do away with the black market related crime.

This society needs productive healthy people - not dopeheads draining society.

I beleive you can only have a self responsible society by setting them free. Life will teach them.

It's no wonder when the gov't takes responsibility for people's lives - through welfare, drug prohibition, etc. that we end up with irresponsible people.

Galatians...chapter 5

13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
[25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
[26] Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gal.6

[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

5:21 says that drunkenness is a vice. Is that to say being intoxicated at a wedding celebration is a sin? Or is drunkenness refering to being a habitual drunk, as is a common definition of the word?

Also not all drugs leave one "drunk". You certainly couldn't call rolling on ecstasy, for example, being drunk.

Why did Jesus turn the water to wine, when this would aid in being drunk?

Where is drug use, aside from alcohol said to be a sin?

I'm just trying to figure out what the bible says on it...

I don't know if that's being nit picky, I think I understand the message is that purely temporal pleasures keep us from God and so I would take that to mean that habitual abusive use of drugs would be a sin.

But we all enjoy temporal pleasures. Maybye it's a matter of where one's focus is - on God or on those temporal pleasures? Maybye I'm totally missing the point, I don't know.

Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Does this refer to God's law or man's law?

My study bible notes says on 5:23 "Because the God who sent the law also sent the Spirit, the by-products of the Spirit-filled life are in prefect harmony with the intent of God's law. A person who exhibits the fruit of the Spirit fulfills the law far better than a person who observes the rituals but has little love in his or her heart."

Well I still don't understand what it's saying.

Pharisees separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, "to separate"). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the "pious"), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145).

The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12).

Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5). There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7).

On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12).

They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1-4). From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.

I didn't notice you were new around here until I looked your profile. f.Christian is a good guy, but his posts can be a bit esoteric at times.

I'm with you. I think for one to suggest that God cannot work through certain drug experiences is to limit the power of God. Some people drink to relax others smoke some pot, is either one done in this fashion wrong? I'm sure abuse of anything is wrong - sex, drugs, food, etc. - all can be abused to excess, but I'm not sure that a completely convincing case can be made that one cannot nor should not ever use a psychoactive substance.

I'm glad to hear the you're searching and learning. We are all on the "hard" path that leads to the final destination - HOME! As we continue in this path we grow and mature, and during this process of becoming closer with God he will impress us with that which should or should not be done. To many think everyone else should be as mature and far along as they - that too is wrong. I'll be praying for you my friend. God Bless.

I didn't notice you were new around here until I looked your profile. f.Christian is a good guy, but his posts can be a bit esoteric at times.

Hehe, thanks. A bit esoteric for me on the subject right now.

I'm with you. I think for one to suggest that God cannot work through certain drug experiences is to limit the power of God. Some people drink to relax others smoke some pot, is either one done in this fashion wrong? I'm sure abuse of anything is wrong - sex, drugs, food, etc. - all can be abused to excess, but I'm not sure that a completely convincing case can be made that one cannot nor should not ever use a psychoactive substance.

It certainly seems that way to me.

I'm glad to hear the you're searching and learning. We are all on the "hard" path that leads to the final destination - HOME! As we continue in this path we grow and mature, and during this process of becoming closer with God he will impress us with that which should or should not be done. To many think everyone else should be as mature and far along as they - that too is wrong. I'll be praying for you my friend. God Bless.

Thanks. :)