the purity myth
October 24, 2013 8:24 PM   Subscribe

Lately, it seems like everyone's talking about Molly: MDMA rebranded for a new generation of gyrators. However, Molly is much safer than Ecstasy, the electronic dance music scene's prior party favor, because it's pure. Right? posted by changeling (92 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
Media hysterics glaze over the fact that MDMA isn't the problem. The problem is adulteration. Regulated, legal recreational use could be safe and worthwhile.
posted by Evstar at 8:28 PM on October 24, 2013 [35 favorites]


Evstar: "Regulated, legal recreational use could be safe and worthwhile."

Sure, but you could say the same thing about any other drug, up to and perhaps including heroin. The issue is that no one is really willing to tolerate the social effects (perceived or real) of legalization and the attendant relaxed attitudes towards excessive use. Thus we're left to deal with a black market.

Assuming you're willing to break the law to get high, I think smoking a few joints and watching a phish concert is to doing molly and dancing yourself to dehydrated exaustion as riding a roller coaster is to doing parkour on the roof of a sixteen-story building. One may be cooler or more sophisticated than the other but that's a little beside the point, no?
posted by anewnadir at 8:37 PM on October 24, 2013 [3 favorites]


Psst!

Hey man!

Yeah, you!

Wanna not get messed up?

posted by CynicalKnight at 8:37 PM on October 24, 2013 [3 favorites]


UMass Amherst recently canceled two or three EDM shows at the campus's big arena because it was scared silly kids would be dying like flies.

In other news, just last week ambulances had to show up THREE TIMES at a single UMass sporting event to rescue kids who'd OD'd on booze.
posted by Camofrog at 8:39 PM on October 24, 2013 [42 favorites]


I have a question. When did MDA turn into MDMA? In the late 70s MDA (known as the "love drug" ) was around. Since then all I hear about is Ecstasy or MDMA...now Molly. Are all these the same thing, just related, or what?
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 8:42 PM on October 24, 2013


Are all these the same thing, just related, or what?

they're similar, but as I understand it, MDA is a more psychedelic, while MDMA is more touchy-feely. this website agrees with me.
posted by changeling at 8:46 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


Molly is just powdered MDMA. It's not even a new thing. They called it that 12 years ago when I was still going to raves.

MDA and MDMA are two different things. MDA is a lot trippier and lasts longer -- about 8 hours. MDMA is a lot more emotional and it only lasts 3-4 hours. MDMA is ecstasy. MDA is sometimes sold as ecstasy, but is not 'real' ecstasy.
posted by empath at 8:47 PM on October 24, 2013 [5 favorites]


If you really want to know about MDA, MDMA, and all its relatives, have a look at PiHKAL.
posted by pombe at 8:48 PM on October 24, 2013 [3 favorites]


Another notable difference -- you can have sex on MDA a lot easier than on MDMA.
posted by empath at 8:48 PM on October 24, 2013


Came to say the same thing as St. Alia, only it was around 2000 that I first heard MDA referred to as "Molly" and distinguished from MDMA/Ecstasy/E/X .
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:48 PM on October 24, 2013


I really, really, really don't understand the appeal of molly. With pills they have branding and consistency. You can look up the purity and stuff online. With the powders, it could be ANYTHING. I'd never buy powdered E.
posted by empath at 8:49 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]




i have always understood molly to mean MDMA, the actual thing. so if i pay for molly and get a mix of MDMA and amphetamines and it kills me, the problem isn't that "kids think molly is safe--but it can kill!" it's that what i took was not actually molly.

"your dealer saying something is pure does not mean it is pure" is harder to spin as new and exciting, tho
posted by a birds at 8:52 PM on October 24, 2013 [4 favorites]


The theory as far as I can tell is if you were buying powdered MDMA you were probably higher up on the supply chain, like only a few links removed from whoever made it originally -- because it's in the form that it comes out of the lab in, as opposed to being pressed into pills by a larger-scale operation.

This doesn't really make sense, but it might have been true in certain places and it seems to have been successful in terms of branding.
posted by vogon_poet at 8:53 PM on October 24, 2013


Dutch ravers can mellow out as official tests make Ecstasy 'safe' ...ah, 1995.

In all seriousness, the current EDM explosion can be linked directly to that. Those dutch pills started flowing into the east coast of the us and by 1999 holland was making these ultra pure pills called Mistubishis in huge numbers and they flooded into the east coast through new york and miami, which caused the first outburst of proper raves in the united states. Almost of the big name american EDM producers now got their start then.
posted by empath at 8:54 PM on October 24, 2013 [4 favorites]


because it's pure. Right?

Some people I knew ran an IR spectrum (potassium bromide pellet) on the MDMA they bought just to make sure it was good. It was. This was around 1994 or so, powdered material in gelcaps.
posted by exogenous at 8:56 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


this is also why i am sad that silk road got shut down before i ever used it. having hundreds of reviews attesting to purity/quality was totally mindblowing to me.
posted by a birds at 9:02 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is ridiculous. I remember people calling it molly back in '98, and I didn't live anywhere even remotely cool.
posted by evil otto at 9:26 PM on October 24, 2013 [7 favorites]


Testing kits
posted by jcruelty at 9:28 PM on October 24, 2013 [3 favorites]


For those who are curious about MDMA but concerned about adulterants: There's a very cool group called the Bunk Police who show up at big music festivals and set up tents where they use chemical testing kits to test whatever strange new drugs people picked up elsewhere at the festival. They maintain a pretty good introduction to this issue on their page here, and they also sell fairly cheap Marquis Reagent Tests you can use at home to check the veracity of whatever compound you've obtained. SWIM has purchased and used their test kit before on SWIM's friend's powdered MDMA and confirmed that it was probably legitimate (a Marquis Reagent Test isn't 100% effective but it does a much better job than eyeballing it).
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 9:28 PM on October 24, 2013 [7 favorites]


Sure, but you could say the same thing about any other drug, up to and perhaps including heroin. The issue is that no one is really willing to tolerate the social effects (perceived or real) of legalization and the attendant relaxed attitudes towards excessive use. Thus we're left to deal with a black market.

MDMA and opiates are hardly comparable. But I agree with you that your analogies to MDMA and marijuana are entirely besides the point.
posted by Evstar at 9:36 PM on October 24, 2013


The issue is that no one is really willing to tolerate the social effects (perceived or real) of legalization and the attendant relaxed attitudes towards excessive use.

No one? 60% of the population wants to legalize pot. The rest of the 'soft' drugs will probably follow.
posted by empath at 9:42 PM on October 24, 2013 [6 favorites]


Does molly just not do anything for some people? I'm asking for a phriend.
posted by juliplease at 9:46 PM on October 24, 2013


MDMA in particular needs to be legalized for quality control purposes as its LD50 is quite low and the fact that it can be cut with anything and might not even have MDMA in it. Doubly so since PMMA started showing up in MDMA several years ago. It's great that some festivals allow organizations in that will do testing but that's not enough by a long shot.

With pills they have branding and consistency.

Historically I've always though of it running in the other direction - that the pills can conceal more than the powder. Anecdotally I've found powder to be a more consistent experience than pills.
posted by MillMan at 9:49 PM on October 24, 2013 [4 favorites]


MDMA and opiates are hardly comparable.

True, opiates have a lot fewer side effects when taken in a known dose and purity.

Anyway, guys, can anyone guess what my solution for the adulterated illegal drugs problem is? I'll give you one guess.

Drug warriors: bad people or worst people?
posted by Justinian at 9:52 PM on October 24, 2013 [6 favorites]


Does molly just not do anything for some people? I'm asking for a phriend.

Unlikely, though people's tolerances and such all differ so not I guess impossible. It works on a pretty basic biochemical level, though.
posted by Justinian at 9:58 PM on October 24, 2013


I was a pretty regular MDMA user a few years back (white powdered kind). It started out being a thing I did only at Burning Man, and then I moved to Southern California and it became instantly available in my social circles. I had a great time as long as I was buying it from the same friend whose reputation and pedigree I completely trusted.

The one time I bought it from someone who "knew a guy," I literally thought I was going to die. It was a nightmarish and horrible night, and thank god I was with one of my closest friends. I had panic attacks for a year and had to go on Citalopram to stave off the attacks for about three years thereafter.

I still think it's a fun thing to do, if you're as certain as certain can be about the provenance of your particular supply. But that experience scared me off it for good. I'm sticking to the organic stuff now.
posted by mykescipark at 10:04 PM on October 24, 2013


this is also why i am sad that silk road got shut down before i ever used it. having hundreds of reviews attesting to purity/quality was totally mindblowing to me.

Doesn't look like it will take very long to find a replacement.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:07 PM on October 24, 2013


In 2000 a local police officer who was their "drug expert" came to my high school and gave a talk in my class. Generally speaking it was informative and to this day most of what he said has held up to my own further research. One thing he did say was that about 80 percent of Ecstasy sold in Arizona was really methamphetamine. Not a year later I happen to be talking to a major distributor of e (oh the people you meet working in a kitchen) who said that sounded about right. Turned me off from doing it to this day. But then again me and my friends spent a year and a half robo tripping on the weekends instead.
posted by nestor_makhno at 10:13 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


i have always understood molly to mean MDMA, the actual thing. so if i pay for molly and get a mix of MDMA and amphetamines and it kills me [...]

What do you think the A stands for?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:14 PM on October 24, 2013 [2 favorites]



Are all these the same thing, just related, or what?

they're similar, but as I understand it, MDA is a more psychedelic, while MDMA is more touchy-feely.


I can't speak for what was actually in them but the best MDA (mid-80s sometime) and the best MDMA (early 90s sometime) I ever did were both exactly the same high with the prime differences being A. the MDA came in powder form as opposed to capsule, B. the MDMA cost about four times as much.

Conclusion. Both the same drug. But by the late 80s, a name change and a pile of hype had allowed for a much more lucrative seller's market. And folks can argue back and forth on this all they like, but as long as the stuff in question remains black market/underground, nobody knows anything for sure. Except for whoever's doing the concocting and they're generally not telling, just selling.
posted by philip-random at 10:16 PM on October 24, 2013


Conclusion. Both the same drug.

They are two different chemicals and it is not difficult to test for the difference.
posted by flaterik at 10:40 PM on October 24, 2013 [8 favorites]


See, I knew I should have gotten to Silk Road before it got closed.

I haven't rolled in, like, three years now, in large part because I don't trust any of the dealers I know to score decent MDMA. Last time, I had a friend get some through a MAPS connection, which was fantastic.

At least, oddly enough, acid is really hard to counterfeit. If you're gonna get burned there, you're gonna get just blank paper (or pane or whatever).
posted by klangklangston at 10:45 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


What do you think the A stands for?

The A stands for Awesome!
posted by Justinian at 10:46 PM on October 24, 2013 [4 favorites]


The problem with opiates is not opiate use, it's opiate addiction and tolerance. Recreational use would probably be more socially acceptable if it didn't lead down that road. The use itself is pretty straightforward, but even if you take away the sensational media depictions, I watched a friend go through treatment for opiate abuse and that part is, well, crap.
posted by Sequence at 10:49 PM on October 24, 2013


Sure, and the problem with alcohol is not alcohol use, it's alcohol addiction. Yet we not only tolerate we celebrate alcohol use. And I assure you going through the DTs is about as awful a withdrawal as you'll find.
posted by Justinian at 10:52 PM on October 24, 2013 [2 favorites]


While playing at a music fest in CA in 2006 or so, somebody asked me if I wanted a "Dip 'em, Ollie!". I was confused, felt old, and said no...
posted by TheCoug at 10:55 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


I have seen, with my own eyes, how MDMA can go wrong. (Believe me, I think this drug is far safer than alcohol or driving or even walking down the street)

Serotonin toxicity is very rare, but it does happen and it is kind of terrifying when it does. (It can also happen with SSRIs)

Speaking of! If you are on SSRIs (like prozac) MDMA will not have any effect until you reach much higher doses.
posted by poe at 10:56 PM on October 24, 2013 [2 favorites]


acid is really hard to counterfeit.

Sadly untrue.
NBOMe is sold as LSD.
posted by flaterik at 11:00 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


The theory as far as I can tell is if you were buying powdered MDMA you were probably higher up on the supply chain, like only a few links removed from whoever made it originally -- because it's in the form that it comes out of the lab in, as opposed to being pressed into pills by a larger-scale operation.

But there was also the point where people stopped wanting pure MDMA - they wanted that kick in the ass that all the adulterants gave the pills - and so the pills started getting more and more speedy.

I also recall reading that one of the girls who died had taken six doses, at once. If true, that is an insane amount for any drug. I don't recall anyone, ever, even being tempted to swallow that many at once - not even the worst fiends. It makes me wonder if there is more of a back-story than we are getting.
posted by kanewai at 11:04 PM on October 24, 2013


Some of the best clubs I've ever been to had plentiful, free water on hand for whoever wanted it. Some of the worst charged $4 per tiny bottle. Want to avoid deaths? Install water fountains. As a nice bartender once told me, "Well, we all know that most of the people here are taking ecstasy, so it would be irresponsible to not make water and a place to rest available." If that kind of attitude were more prevalent, kids would stop dying.

This all has very little to do with harm avoidance. If it did, David Nutt would still have a job.
posted by 1adam12 at 11:23 PM on October 24, 2013 [2 favorites]


Conclusion. Both the same drug.

They are not, and you don't know what you were buying. My dealer/friend got a shitload of MDA pills in the early 2000s at a huge discount. We knew they were weird after trying them the first time and had them tested by a lab to find out what they were. They actually sold like crazy because people that had built up a tolerance to regular MDMA thought it was really strong E. My friend tried to be responsible and tell them it was different and not to take to many of them (it's a lot easier to OD on MDA than MDMA, so it's important to know the difference).
posted by empath at 11:28 PM on October 24, 2013


"Molly" hitting the old-media/old-white-people hysteria circuit now is probably more than anything a result of this awful song, which I'm shocked no one has mentioned yet.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:34 PM on October 24, 2013


exogenous: I would not be trusting an IR to tell me purity, wayyyy to much stuff that won't show up in it, or wouldn't show up very well. GC-MS possibly, some HPLC method.... NMR would do pretty well, though I'd sure want to hammer those scans on to make sure there wasn't much hiding in the baseline.... but IR? That does *not* seem like the right tool for the job.
posted by Canageek at 11:51 PM on October 24, 2013


"molly" is/was supposed to mean molecularly pure mdma, which always came in powder form since it requires a binder to press into tablets. the new people didn't know that background and everyone wanted the 'good' stuff, so now everything is just called molly, cus who wants the impure stuff. meanwhile there is just as much impure stuff around. language creep.
posted by thetruthisjustalie at 11:53 PM on October 24, 2013 [2 favorites]


Want to avoid deaths? Install water fountains

Of course then you get the kids who've heard you have to drink lots and lots and lots of water when taking MDMA and die of water intoxication.
posted by Justinian at 11:53 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


But by the late 80s, a name change and a pile of hype had allowed for a much more lucrative seller's market.

Well, that and the fact that it became illegal, which drove both the hype and the market. Pure, lab-produced MDMA was available legally until mid-1985, and then again briefly for about two months in 1988. Shulgin's lab in Berkeley was operating (with DEA research licenses (!!)) until 1994 or so, and you could always tell when some of his assistants/associates would turn up at SFRAVES events.

Nancy Reagan can suck it. I miss PLUR.
posted by toxic at 11:55 PM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


For some reason the Happy Mondays are playing in my head as I read this thread.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:04 AM on October 25, 2013 [5 favorites]


Shaun Ryder's got a new show on UFOs
posted by mannequito at 12:10 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


(sorry, I saw Happy Mondays and totally forgot what thread I was in - back to drugs, everyone!)
posted by mannequito at 12:11 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


old-media/old-white-people hysteria circuit

Yeah. What do old-white-people know about drugs?
posted by three blind mice at 12:31 AM on October 25, 2013


Those dutch pills started flowing into the east coast of the us and by 1999 holland was making these ultra pure pills called Mistubishis in huge numbers and they flooded into the east coast through new york and miami, which caused the first outburst of proper raves in the united states.

...as dramatized in the movie Holy Rollers, a watchable (though disappointingly pedestrian) condensation of the Sean Erez case.
posted by dhartung at 12:32 AM on October 25, 2013


i have always understood molly to mean MDMA, the actual thing. so if i pay for molly and get a mix of MDMA and amphetamines and it kills me, the problem isn't that "kids think molly is safe--but it can kill!" it's that what i took was not actually molly.

MDMA IS an amphetamine. If you wouldn't take methamphetamine, don't take MDMA. They do the same basic thing in the brain, MDMA is just more biased toward serotonin.
posted by gjc at 12:34 AM on October 25, 2013


If you wouldn't take methamphetamine, don't take MDMA. They do the same basic thing in the brain, MDMA is just more biased toward serotonin.

They do dramatically, dramatically different things to the brain, both in terms of the subjective experience and the method of action.
posted by empath at 12:43 AM on October 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


That's not really true, empath. The pharmacology of MDMA and methamphetamine is similar. The subjective experience is different and there is some evidence the toxicology of methamphetamine is worse, and the addictive potential is not the same, but the methord of action is not "dramatically different." It's fairly equivalent.
posted by Justinian at 1:12 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sorry you're right, I was thinking of amphetamine, not methamphetamine.
posted by empath at 1:20 AM on October 25, 2013


Yeah. What do old-white-people know about drugs?

Did you really have to illustrate that with the most joyless, depressing song an old white person song ever wrote about drugs? It's songs like that that lead young people to completely dismiss what old white people have to say about drugs.

So I'll see your Neil Young and raise you a Harry 'the hipster' Gibson.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:24 AM on October 25, 2013


Willie Nelson and Band beat the "Prisoner Dilemma". Top that.
posted by mikelieman at 1:43 AM on October 25, 2013


Neil wasn't old when he wrote TN&TDD, he wasn't even 27 yet (!)

(but yeah, what does heroin have to do with this?)

I don't even know how I got in this thread

someone put on Massive Attack, please!
posted by mannequito at 2:04 AM on October 25, 2013 [2 favorites]


I assure you going through the DTs is about as awful a withdrawal as you'll find.

Also, if i'm not mistaken, one of the only withdrawals that can actually kill you if not done properly. I had a friend who started getting the shakes when she stopped drinking for any length of time, and i kept trying to advise her to talk to a doctor about that.
posted by usagizero at 2:10 AM on October 25, 2013


It's been noted that now the rave generation has grown up and become just yer working joes with families, houses, jobs and cars (mod economy), their recollections of blissed-up nights and day-glo tribalism are nearly universally positive. Not just in terms of the hedonism, although hell yeah, but in the gateways of empathy that opened up in the process.

In other words, we've had our massive, uncontrolled social experiment with MDMA and it stands up really well as something which is not only not noticeably damaging to a large population but is seen as beneficial.

Which is not to say it's all been heavenly or that MDMA is soma, but compared to nearly all other recreational substances, licit and illicit, it's got really good form.

Of course, we're all still waiting for the results of the massive state-funded follow-up study being conducted by disinterested researchers with an aim of a sane, sustainable and risk-minimised drug policy.
posted by Devonian at 3:06 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Which is not to say it's all been heavenly or that MDMA is soma, but compared to nearly all other recreational substances, licit and illicit, it's got really good form.

That's largely, imo, because it's largely self-limiting in that it stops working if you do it too often, which is rather a nice feature for something that is so fun that people would do it all the time if they could.
posted by empath at 3:15 AM on October 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


Christ, I hate ecstasy being called Molly. Almost as much as I hate the term EDM.
posted by Caskeum at 3:26 AM on October 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


Canageek: "exogenous: I would not be trusting an IR to tell me purity, wayyyy to much stuff that won't show up in it, or wouldn't show up very well"

Yeah, you're right, IR was just the best tool available to them at the time. Also there was this one strange peak that seemed like it was in the wrong place for water but was difficult to attribute to anything else.
posted by exogenous at 5:45 AM on October 25, 2013


>i have always understood molly to mean MDMA, the actual thing.
>so if i pay for molly and get a mix of MDMA and amphetamines and it kills me [...]

What do you think the A stands for?

...

>>they're similar, but as I understand it, MDA is a more psychedelic,
>>while MDMA is more touchy-feely.

>Conclusion. Both the same drug.

They are not, and you don't know what you were buying. My dealer/friend got a shitload of MDA pills in the early 2000s at a huge discount. We knew they were weird after trying them the first time and had them tested by a lab to find out what they were. They actually sold like crazy because people that had built up a tolerance to regular MDMA thought it was really strong E. My friend tried to be responsible and tell them it was different and not to take to many of them (it's a lot easier to OD on MDA than MDMA, so it's important to know the difference).


There really shouldn't be this much confusion.

MDA (Methylenedioxyamphetamine) is the older drug.

MDMA (methylenedioxy methamphetamine) came later.

As you can see, they both have the "A" -- the basic amphetamine component. Ecstasy is methylated -- thus the convention that MDMA is "speedier" than MDA (so better for dancing vs. fucking). It's amphetamine vs. methamphetamine. This is also why ecstasy is cut with meth (again, leading to the complaint that the E is 'too speedy') or why a bad dealer can fuck around with palming off meth as ecstasy.

There are a lot of drugs in this family, as was alluded to in the reference to PiHKAL above.

Here's erowid on MDA and MDMA.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:46 AM on October 25, 2013 [2 favorites]


I asked the Machine Elves about this and they just rolled their clockwork eyes before filing off into the mystery box that controls the universe.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:49 AM on October 25, 2013 [7 favorites]


Well, DMT is something else entirely. But say hi to the elves.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:50 AM on October 25, 2013 [4 favorites]


We don't have clockwork eyes. We're .... quite a bit different.
posted by aramaic at 6:34 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


The FOX "5 wretched new street drugs" article lumps "Molly" in with this new, FLESH EATING KROKODIL DRUG (I have no idea if that stuff is as bad as everyone says: is there some reason that desomorphine is a flesh eating drug? Or is it just infections from dirty needles?) and also "Butane Hash Oil" which is the new, incredibly dangerous form of cannabis that is dangerous because it is the strongest cannabis, and we have to have a new, dangerous, incredibly strong cannabis scare every few years because LOOK AT ALL THESE CANNABIS DEATHS.

Also some stuff called 2CP which "police suspect" made four kids pass out somewhere, and Suboxone, which my cousin takes for chronic back pain, and she seems kind of sketchy sometimes, frankly.

Back when I was a youngster it was simpler times. We just had Ecstacy, Weed, Speed, Smack, Crack, Uppers, Downers, Laughers, Screamers, Acid, Angel Dust, Shrooms, Mescaline, Carbona (Not Glue), Butyl Nitrite, Coke, Frop, and Beer. So I don't even know anymore because it all seems like REEFER MADNESS so imma mainly stick with malbecs and pinot grigios, which, yes, I know are not completely safe, but are generally pleasant enough in moderation I suppose.
posted by Cookiebastard at 6:38 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


I assure you going through the DTs is about as awful a withdrawal as you'll find.

True. But it's a *lot* harder to get to the point where you'll hit the DTs with ethanol than it is to hit massive opioid withdrawal syndrome with opioids.

And, opioids are powerful. The anti-pain effects are why we keep them around, but they're staggeringly powerful antidepressant, anti-anxiety agents, antipsychotics, and euphoriants. That's why people keep using them. If they were just painkillers, they wouldn't be abused nearly as much as they are.
posted by eriko at 6:40 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Of course then you get the kids who've heard you have to drink lots and lots and lots of water when taking MDMA and die of water intoxication.

That's so very dry.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 6:49 AM on October 25, 2013


big ups to everyone popping in to explain the linguistic theory of drugs, in which the word amphetamine being inside the word methylenedioxymethamphetamine means they are used identically irl
posted by a birds at 7:18 AM on October 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


Dutch ravers can mellow out as official tests make Ecstasy 'safe' ...ah, 1995.

In all seriousness, the current EDM explosion can be linked directly to that.


Ah, ha. So now we know who to blame.

This all has very little to do with harm avoidance. If it did, David Nutt would still have a job.

*looks at URL*

Oh, come on.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:01 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


"True. But it's a *lot* harder to get to the point where you'll hit the DTs with ethanol than it is to hit massive opioid withdrawal syndrome with opioids."

Yeah, but so? The fact is that withdrawal from heavy alcohol addiction is life-threatening, people die of it while, in contrast, withdrawal from severe opiate addiction is not in itself life-threatening and people don't die from it. It's incredibly unpleasant and some things related to that can stress someone in very poor health such that they might have heart failure or something, but otherwise opiate withdrawal is not really a medical issue except palliative. But ethanol withdrawal requires close medical supervision and it's pretty common, though for some reason people aren't very aware of it.

And the funny thing about ethanol in comparison to opiate when people are talking about overdosing and other fatalities associated with them, is that a large portion of opiate fatalities involve alcohol or another central nervous system depressant along with the opiate. And, meanwhile, alcohol kills people everyday in numerous other ways. It's really kind of amazing that alcohol is socially acceptable while so many other things are not, given that alcohol is especially dangerous and socially destructive. But it's not amazing at all when you think about it anthropologically — human consumption of alcohol is nearly universal in time and space of human existence. It's still annoying.

All the amphetamines are, as recreational drugs go, on the "not good for you" side of things, including MDMA.

The other day, I was reading some erowid experiences of MBDB, which is very close to MDMA, but people's trip experiences were different in interesting ways.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:45 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


I didn't link it, but Miley Cyrus is another big reason Molly's the hysteria of the season; this summer she admitted the lyric in "We Can't Stop" is indeed "dancing with Molly." and then romanced the drug a bit more to Rolling Stone.
posted by changeling at 8:47 AM on October 25, 2013


That's largely, imo, because it's largely self-limiting in that it stops working if you do it too often, which is rather a nice feature for something that is so fun that people would do it all the time if they could.

I once had a conversation with Alexander Shulgin, in which he told me that he thought the entactogenic effect of the drug only worked about six times. After that, it's primarily a stimulant and those qualitatively different effects are fleeting.

Doesn't mean you won't spend a few more years trying to recapture them, mind.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:47 AM on October 25, 2013 [4 favorites]


So - if anyone knows of an RC place that might have MBDB, feel free to memail SWIM. It looks interesting, especially for the therapeutic effects, which is partially one of the strongest points of MDMA IMO.
posted by symbioid at 9:05 AM on October 25, 2013


To add a little anecdotal evidence to the opiates vs. alcohol conversation, in the course of directing a documentary I interviewed several people who were long-term alcoholics and several who were long-term opiate abusers. I had been around my share of drunks and junkies before, but not people who had been at it for 20 years. The drunks were in noticeably worse shape than the junkies.
posted by vibrotronica at 9:47 AM on October 25, 2013


Sure, and the problem with alcohol is not alcohol use, it's alcohol addiction.

Alcohol use can increase cancer risk, cause liver damage, dramatically raise blood pressure, etc. It's disingenuous to compare it to opiates, where tolerance and addiction really are the main problems. The drugs themselves, when pure, aren't as harmful as alcohol.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 9:58 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


>The issue is that no one is really willing to tolerate the social effects (perceived or real) of legalization

The Portuguese are willing, they have steeled themselves and now not only they tolerate, but BRAVELY ENDURE the decline of illegal drug use by teenagers, the drop in the rate of HIV infections among drug users, the number of deaths related to heroin and similar drugs being cut by half, and the doubling of the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction.
posted by Tom-B at 10:49 AM on October 25, 2013 [6 favorites]


The Portuguese are willing

previously
posted by changeling at 11:37 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


But ethanol withdrawal requires close medical supervision and it's pretty common, though for some reason people aren't very aware of it.

"I'm really tired of all that advertising revenue we're getting from Seagrams, Budweiser, and Gallo. Let's do a hard-hitting piece on the damage alcohol does and focus on the fatal effects of alcohol withdrawal." As never said by any magazine or TV station owner.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:36 PM on October 25, 2013 [4 favorites]


logically, drugs have their effect because they disrupt normal, healthy functioning processes, such as perception of time and space. They don't use a stop sign to do this, they disturb what is healthy, so by definition they are unhealthy, destructive. They aren't necessarily going to kill you, and there are gadzillions of things that will interrupt normal functioning without bringing you joy, but biochemically, logically, that's what they are

market-wise, they need to have a nightmarish comedown and a quick addiction to be successful. Usually you need to aim for a market with money - hence the absence of many things poor people need and the endless options facing the rich shopper - but drugs got over that by making far more people prepared to commit crime or sell their bodies to purchase them than normal goods & services succeed in doing

neither of these would be solved by legalisation. I just like annoying people by pointing this out

but the crime link might bear causal relation to it's being a crime already to take the drugs - might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb - or links might arise from similarity of background between sellers and buyers (crime lurks in social background of both)

If they did make sugar illegal, as one headline urged, wouldn't it be the most popular drug and wipe out the trade in heroin etc though?
posted by maiamaia at 4:55 PM on October 25, 2013


"The drugs themselves, when pure, aren't as harmful as alcohol."
But most people drink like i do - half a pint to one pint a session, over an hour or two. I met a man whose heart attack was triggered by espresso - that raises blood pressure and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. (He was ex military and a skiing instructor in his 50s so it was kind of scary that could happen.)
posted by maiamaia at 4:59 PM on October 25, 2013


"They don't use a stop sign to do this, they disturb what is healthy, so by definition they are unhealthy, destructive. "

That's idiotic. Capsaicin disrupts normal, healthy functioning processes, but describing it as unhealthy and destructive shows that's a terrible definition.
posted by klangklangston at 5:16 PM on October 25, 2013 [11 favorites]


market-wise, they need to have a nightmarish comedown and a quick addiction to be successful.

This is absolute horse-shit.
posted by empath at 5:59 PM on October 25, 2013 [6 favorites]


I couldn't make heads nor tails of her entire comment, honestly.
posted by Justinian at 6:05 PM on October 25, 2013 [5 favorites]


I had been around my share of drunks and junkies before, but not people who had been at it for 20 years.

I have met many people who have consumed ethanol in intoxicating doses weekly for over 20 years. I am probably one of them.

I have met many people who have consumed ethanol in intoxicating doses daily for over five years. A number of them, but not all of them, are dead, but there is a large set of people who did this for five years.

I have met exactly zero who have consumed opiates in intoxicating doses daily for over five years.

I have been to funeral of those who have consumed opiates in intoxicating doses daily. They didn't make it anywhere near five years.

And, for those who know my history, I am not counting either Joey or Jan, who both almost certainly died of opiate overdose. There, the fact that opiates kill you along with the pain is a feature, not a bug. Fuck cancer.
posted by eriko at 8:35 PM on October 25, 2013


logically, drugs have their effect because they disrupt normal, healthy functioning processes, such as perception of time and space. They don't use a stop sign to do this, they disturb what is healthy, so by definition they are unhealthy, destructive.

Wait. How are stop signs figuring into this?
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:52 PM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sorry, this might be off-topic, but I just noticed something:

They called it adam, as in being “reborn anew,” because that’s how it made patients feel.

Has anybody here played Bioshock? The story revolves around a drug called ADAM, which allows people to change their genome, very similar to being born again with different traits.

Just thought that was interesting.
posted by rlio at 10:03 PM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


I have met many people who have consumed ethanol in intoxicating doses weekly for over 20 years. I am probably one of them.

I'm not talking about casual drinkers or weekend warriors. I'm talking about wake up in the morning and drink a pint of vodka every day drinkers vs. $100+ a day heroin users who land in rehab every few years and go on methadone for a while until they relapse junkies. These are both extreme cases, of course, but I was surprised that the heavy drinkers seemed much less healthy. It could also be the case that the junkies stuck to opiates while the drinkers were much less discriminating in what they put in their bodies.

Methadone, BTW, is a nasty, nasty drug. I think for opiate addicts in treatment a controlled, tapered dose of heroin or morphine every day is a much better option than methadone. And as far as aging the user prematurely and playing havok with your skin, tobacco is the king. I can't believe it when I see a model smoking a cigarette. It's the worst thing they could be doing.
posted by vibrotronica at 8:24 AM on October 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Methadone has an unusually long elimination half-life, which has everything to do with why it's not as addictive and is used as a treatment for heroin addiction. But that same unusually long half-life also means that withdrawal is unusually lengthy. Whereas the much stronger opiates have withdrawal periods measured in days, the withdrawal period of methadone can be measured in weeks.

It's less severe, but having a sense that something very unpleasant is short-lived and relief is proximate makes something much more tolerable, while the prospect of something unpleasant going on for long-periods and relief being remote is it's own kind of torture. This is my own experience, anyway, with all sorts of things, including emotional pain.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:08 PM on October 26, 2013


« Older San Francisco’s most glaring contradiction   |   "A song is either good to start with, or it's bad... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments