Free Republic

From the same source.

In the early 1980s, the drug began to be used non-medically, particularly in Texas, under the name Ecstasy.

Both the non-medical and therapeutic use of MDMA were made illegal in 1985 despite the Drug Enforcement Administration Administrative Law Judge Francis Young's recommendation that physicians be permitted to continue to administer it to their patients.

MDMA was first synthesized in 1912. It was patented in Germany by the Merck Company in 1914. At that time it was not the subject of human research.

Merck stumbled across MDMA when they tried to synthesize Hydrastinin, a vasoconstrictive and styptic medicine.

MDMA was an unplanned by-product of this synthesis. As usual, the process of its synthesis was patented.

Source: First link from Google on "MDMA manufacturing 1914"

Incorrect.

MDMA was discovered in 1914 as part of a manufacturing process and noted as a curiosity. It wasn't experimented with again until mid-century. It was first called "Adam" by pyschologists, because they felt it put the user in touch with a more innocent state of mind. Some dealer, some where called it ecstacy and the name (because it's a good one) stuck.

I'm not sure that you or others on this thread realize that MDMA was used as a theraputic tool among pyschologists for YEARS before it was outlawed in an emergency action by the FDA in response to its use on the party scene. There's a series of interesting books published posthumously and anonymously by pyschologists who continue to use the substance for counseling.

MDMA is Schedule III in Canada and thus considered suitable for medical trials. It's commonly used for post-traumatic rape victims. The substance allows an individual to deal with particularly painful situations that can take literal years of therapy to overcome.

Speaking as a close friend of someone who was counseled in an MDMA trial (for post-traumatic rape), it is a miracle drug and it is a crying shame that it remains schedule I in America (no medical use recognized). Even Cocaine is listed as a schedule II. They put some in my eye when I had lasic surgery.

I dunno. We'll have to agree to disagree. But someone can have different views than me and that does not preclude them from leading me as long as they don't try and impose those views on me.

I feel disheartened when Rudy fails a FR litmus test without even considering his better qualities. I take it as a *given* that any politico running for national office on a republican platform has to support the party line on abortion or be put in a position (such as homeland security) where their views on the matter are marginlized.

It's a real shame that we are agreeing with the liberal media that Rudy isn't ready for prime time. They'd like to get him off our bench.

"He's an adulterous, pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment RINO. That doesn't make for a "great man" in my book."

I'll ignore "adulterous" -- he has faults, like plenty of leaders. You don't believe the NYT press has their long knives out for him on this? Should Jack Ryan have gotten killed this last political cycle as well?

You can not get elected in that part of the country without being pro-abortion to some degree. The debate on this is clearly shifting in the country but that doesn't determine a candidate for an executive office.

You do know Cheney has pretty much admitted to not supporting a gay marriage ammendment, right? But he's been clear in his support for the president.

I would expect that if Rudy would want to get ellected or fill a leadership role there would be certain expectations for him as well.

But views which are different from mine do not bar an individual from helping lead. If you had been in NYC at the time of 9/11 (I was, with family), you would have seen a great man who lead people well. Instead, many sit here reading this with a cynic's eye and applying a litmus test preemptively to quash an individual who has much potential to expand the influence of this party beyond 150k votes in Ohio.

He's a great man because he cleaned up a city that had no hope -- it was completely gone. Call it off.

IRL, I'm in a pretty corporate environment and he has two assets which make for a great CEO. He's a "turn around" guy and he's a "crisis management" guy. We've seen him in action twice and he's done great.

He might not have the chops to be president based on his views, although I say boo to those of you making comments about him cheating. GW and mispent youth anyone? And before Reagan entered politics (as SAG president) he didn't make that much of his life. We all have our faults, but character is how you act when the chips are down, and Rudy has out-performed twice. Once with NYC and once with 9/11.

Let me turn the question around... would anyone here vote against a SOMEONE/RUDY ticket (Rudy as vp?) Unlike dems I like to think we pride ourselves on being big tent as long as someone isn't threatening core values.

I have no problem with log cabin republicans or anti-gun republicans or pro-choice republicans as long as they realize that some of their views differ from the party platform which republicans sign on to. And I bet that most of you feel that way. Afterall, I don't see that many threads about Specter now that he towed the line...

I'd vote for him in a second -- he's a great man. And this is not a NYC'r talking.

Much like I vote for bush even though I'm a hard hard core fiscal conservative.

If guilliani doesn't push his pro-choice/pro-gay views than he can be a great leader. He is made from far sterner stuff than GW who has just as many faults with the idealogy of a conservative (although on the fiscal, not social side).

Religion aside, like a lot of the old jewish rituals including a kosher diet, circumcision happened because it was a healthier way to live at the time. Not eating pork, for example, was a pretty healthy way to live at the time.

Speaking on behalf of myself and the woman looking over my shoulder, a circumcised penis looks a lot better anyway.

If you really want to see the interesting arguments about circumcision head on over to wikipedia sometime. That's probably the most contested page on the whole site where pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision camps go back and forth.

Uhm... make it very slowly lose pressure and eventually those dangly masks will pop out?

Okay I'll eat crow. I had no idea of the extent of her majesty's awfulness.

Why don't we do this thread some justice and come up with an email for passing around that is accurate to a "t"? Is there a hillary expert out there?

If that's the case I'd like to see an email that is sourced, gives proof, etc. I don't know the particulars of that situation but as far as I know you can't just accept money from a foreign government only individuals.

Regardless, it's one thing getting (justifiably?) angry with her for being a shill and it's another thing to call her office, demanding she return the money, and look like a bunch of nuts.

If that's the case then this is some slick spin indeed. Personally I'd like to see a real email, started with the Palestine stuff and ending with showing that photo of the children dancing in the streets.

Sorry, but I don't want to post the text and give it justice.