Join 3,500 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Ecstasy: Brainfood
October 23, 2006 6:47 AM   Subscribe

Ecstasy is good for your brain. A new study suggests that MDMA may actually increase the survival of dopamine neurons, suggesting it may be helpful to combat diseases like Parkinsons. This is already supported by some anecdotal evidence.
posted by empath (62 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Kind of a waste not to throw in at least one link to www.maps.org, no?
posted by ernie at 6:52 AM on October 23, 2006


Dopamine therapy for Parkinson's Disease also makes people compulsive gamblers and child molestors ymmv
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:02 AM on October 23, 2006


Other than in The Onion, I really never thought that I would find these two quotes in the same article:

New research from the University of Cincinnati (UC) suggests that the widely abused club drug "ecstasy," or MDMA, can increase the survival of dopamine cells in the brain during fetal development.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

posted by leftcoastbob at 7:04 AM on October 23, 2006


Marijuana may block Alzheimer's.

Everyday it looks more and more like I'm gonna live to 200.
posted by three blind mice at 7:06 AM on October 23, 2006 [3 favorites]


and high!
posted by Freen at 7:14 AM on October 23, 2006


On a more serious note, I had a crazy friend who told me this, once, many years ago. I told him he was crazy as a soup sandwich. Guess I was wrong.
posted by Freen at 7:16 AM on October 23, 2006


I've just now decided that congress can't make any drugs illegal that they haven't at least tried once.
posted by empath at 7:20 AM on October 23, 2006


I'm not sure this really says "ecstasy is good for your brain" so much as "ecstasy is better for your brain than is Parkinsons".

I am pretty sure the swiss cheese effect is not just "in people's heads" so to speak.
posted by shownomercy at 7:32 AM on October 23, 2006


shownomercy: there is no swiss cheese effect. That tests that 'proved' that e caused brain damage were completely fucked up. The guy thought he was injecting MDMA, but was really injecting incredibly high doses of methamphetamine.
posted by empath at 7:35 AM on October 23, 2006


Questionable anecdotal evidence follows:

In college I got heavily into e -- like about $200 a week of it for several months. I only knew it was time to stop and spend the next month detoxing after I found in any conversation by the time someone had finished a sentence, I would have to ask them to tell me what the beginning of it was. My short term memory was nil, and mostly returned (as far as I can tell) after several months of being off e.

Take it for what you will, but if it weren't for all the x'ing I probably would've finished writing this
posted by judge.mentok.the.mindtaker at 7:38 AM on October 23, 2006


Crazy as a soup sandwich

I haven't heard that since William Howard Taft.
posted by stbalbach at 7:41 AM on October 23, 2006


Alcohol may be good for your heart in small doses, but if you polish off a 26oz daily it's not doing good to any of your body parts. I suspect the same may hold true for other substances.
posted by clevershark at 7:42 AM on October 23, 2006


Regular abuse (and I mean 3-5 pills a week for months and months and months and months) will make you a complete basketcase, but after a month or so without taking it, you're basically back to normal.

At least, uh, I've heard.
posted by empath at 7:47 AM on October 23, 2006


Sigh. Lets all RTFA please:

He noticed, during previous laboratory studies in rats, that prenatal exposure to MDMA increased growth of dopamine cells in the brain.


1) This is an animal model. Effects in rats' brains may or may not indicate effects in human brains. Animal models are useful for doing preliminary medical investigations, but they are far, far, far from conclusive proof.

His team then decided to study exposure to MDMA in cultured embryonic cells--where they confirmed that this drug was in fact increasing dopamine cell survival.

2) Its not clear whether these are human or rat embryonic cells, but either way these are not adult cells in adult organisms - they're cultured embryonic cells, which may well react quite differently to MDMA and otehr substances....

The findings, Lipton says, aren't consistent with what is known about adult brains, where MDMA has been shown to cause depletion of neurotransmitters--like dopamine--and has been linked to decreased brain activity.

3) ...which this very researcher knows very well, and is responsible enough to acknowledge.

So, we can conclude: Prenatal exposure to ecstasy appears to be "good" for rats, and possibly for human embryos. So unless you're a rat or human embryo, this does not mean that "ecstasy is good for your brain."

FWIW, I'm totally agnostic about the benefits/drawbacks of and legalization of drugs. But I am all for actually reading articles and accurately reflecting their content in a FPP.
posted by googly at 7:50 AM on October 23, 2006


alcohol isn't good for you.

now, the grapes that are used to make some wine have, in the skins mind you, some niiiiice antioxidants.

but alcohol basically destroys your brain.

bye bye.
posted by ewkpates at 7:51 AM on October 23, 2006


Drugs and history series was on the History Channel a few weeks ago. Pretty good series (though seemed old since there was no profile of crystal meth). They had therapists that had worked with MDMA with clients and that it sometimes helped people accomplish years of therapy in the matter of a few sessions. When MDMA was put on the DEA's Schedule I list that doomed all scientific research since Schedule I qualifies a substance as being completely without any medical use or merit.
posted by ao4047 at 8:08 AM on October 23, 2006


Alcohol has been shown to be a very good muscle relaxant, aids in stress relief, and eases social mixing for introverts. It also makes a very good solvent.

It's all about the dose, dude. Small amounts of Vitamin K (I don't mean ketamine) are good for you - large amounts destroy your liver. Drugs are not black and white.
posted by noble_rot at 8:10 AM on October 23, 2006


So, we can conclude: Prenatal exposure to ecstasy appears to be "good" for rats, and possibly for human embryos. So unless you're a rat or human embryo, this does not mean that "ecstasy is good for your brain."

FWIW, I'm totally agnostic about the benefits/drawbacks of and legalization of drugs. But I am all for actually reading articles and accurately reflecting their content in a FPP.
posted by googly


So boys and girls, the moral is: Don't do E unless you're pregnant.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:12 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]


FWIW, I'm totally agnostic about the benefits/drawbacks of and legalization of drugs. But I am all for actually reading articles and accurately reflecting their content in a FPP.

If drug researchers can use dubious animal research to get miraculous chemicals banned, i feel I'm within my rights to do the opposite.
posted by empath at 8:15 AM on October 23, 2006


Also, cf. Hypervitaminosis A and iron overdose.

Not that MDMA has to be good juct because other good vitamins can be bad, but yeah, dosage is key for the nth time.
posted by GuyZero at 8:17 AM on October 23, 2006


Some stuff is poisonous if you insert enough of it into yourself. Exactly the same stuff can save your life , such as the poisonous plant Digitalis, can save your life.

We already saw this on the blue, but if get too much sleeping pills at one time they will kill you, yetsometimes they make wake you up from a persistant vegetative state, something that still look like miracle and gives hope to a lot of desperates.

As for the "war on drug" , prohibitionism only contains it doesn't win ; yet what draws to substance abuse is sometimes young people gullibitly, but more often is seeking an answer to a problem, the WRONG answer.
posted by elpapacito at 8:24 AM on October 23, 2006


Empath, I'm not saying it has to do with the drugs, or anything, but can you not recognize a delicious pun when you see it.

On a more serious note, how crazy is it that this guy says realizing MDMA could have therapeutic effects makes him reconceive his preconceived notions? And did the writer of the article include that quote to make him seem silly after everyone reads about original, pre-rave uses? And why would anyone think taking club drugs doesn't include some manner of speed at least 80% of the time?
posted by shownomercy at 8:36 AM on October 23, 2006


If drug researchers can use dubious animal research to get miraculous chemicals banned, i feel I'm within my rights to do the opposite.

Oh please.

First, you're not doing the opposite, you're using the same tactic to defend the contrary position. Get your spurious defenses straight.

Second, are you "within your rights" to overexaggerate animal models? Yes. Of course. You're within your rights dress up in a purple dress, climb Mt. Shasta, and sing the theme song from "Fame" if you want to. Does this make it valid or defensible or something other than a misleading FPP? No.

Third. By your statement indicates that you admit that animal models are of dubious value in this case. So then why devote a FPP to them?

Finally. Does your comment meant that:

If drug researchers can use ethically dubious human subjects research to get chemicals banned, then you feel you are within your rights to do the same?

If drug researchers blatantly falsify data to get chemicals banned, then you feel you are within your rights to do the same?

If drug researchers force lawmakers at gunpoint to pass legislation to ban chemicals, then get chemicals banned, then you feel you are within your rights to do the same?

If so, then you're an advocate willing to mobilize any case, no matter how flimsy, to support a position that you have already concluded upon in advance.

Which is fine. Really. I just think its good to distinguish advocacy based on hyperbole from well-researched FPPs based on solid evidence.
posted by googly at 8:37 AM on October 23, 2006


Irony. Merck had a 1913 German patent on MDMA (ecstasy), courtesy of the late great Alexander Shulgin. Drug co. Sandoz got a patent on LSD in 1948, and Eli Lilly (the folks who brought you Prozac) got a patent in 1956 on methods of making LSD.

In the US, a patent is the right to exclude others from using, making, selling, or distributing the thing patented. Patents in the 50's lasted 17 years after they issued. If you can prove someone willfully infringed a patent, you can have your damages tripled.

I wonder how much money Eli Lilly and Sandoz could have made suing every LSD dealer and user from in the 50's 60's and 70's?

Probably not as much as the $10 billion Lilly made annually before 2001 on Prozac, before it went generic.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:38 AM on October 23, 2006


hey here's some anecdotal evidence: i used to have some friends in high school but then they started doing ex and now they're all drug casualties.

not
worth it
posted by radiosig at 8:49 AM on October 23, 2006


googly: Lighten up. Last I checked, metafilter was not a peer-reviewed medical journal.
posted by empath at 9:00 AM on October 23, 2006


Tim can perform gymnastic feats while on ecstasy

What? No YouTube link?
posted by anotherbrick at 9:11 AM on October 23, 2006


courtesy of the late great Alexander Shulgin

He's still alive and kicking, right? His information at Wikipedia and Erowid don't mention his passing.
posted by peeedro at 9:22 AM on October 23, 2006


hey here's some anecdotal evidence: i used to have some friends in high school but then they started doing ex and now they're all drug casualties.

not
worth it


Here's some more anecdotal evidence (we could go round in circles. Drugs are bad/good and can kill/save?)

I have a group of 30 or so friends. Out of that group all have tried mdma, starting about 10 years ago. 1 has died of a kidney infection (he took a load, got a kidney transplant then carried on drinking and taking drugs...idiot. It was actually alcohol killed him), only myself and about 5 others have stopped them completely

No-one has yet gone mad although a few do suffer from depression (funnily, those who have now stopped. And it's not exactly mental crazy depression, I would say it's there in us but is exasperated by taking mdma - certainly that's the case for me).

However, mdma, without a doubt, has been a completely positive experience for all of us bar one (who deserves a Darwin award, not sympathy).

totally
worth it
posted by twistedonion at 9:27 AM on October 23, 2006


empath: You're right, its not. I'm not trying to hold your FPP to an impossibly high standard; and if I seem abrasive on this matter, I apologize. I'm just a little tired of seeing FPPs that take a journalistic gloss on a suggestive scientific study and post them as if some conclusive evidence has been found. And, unfortunately, this often seems to be the case with FPPs about the alleged benefits of illegal drug use.

On second read, its clear that your FPP - which specifies that this study is suggestive, not definitive - is not one of these. So my bad.

Nevertheless, even if MeFi isn't a peer-reviewed medical journal, I would prefer it to be the kind of place that encourages critical review of news stories, not just another cog in the hyperbolizing media-machine.
posted by googly at 9:28 AM on October 23, 2006


Oh, and we all hold down well paid jobs, in case you were thinking we were a bunch of 16 year old kids. Anecdotal evidence means nothing. that's all I'm saying.
posted by twistedonion at 9:32 AM on October 23, 2006


Merck had a 1913 German patent on MDMA (ecstasy), courtesy of the late great Alexander Shulgin.

...born June 17, 1925...

Huh?

I wonder how much money Eli Lilly and Sandoz could have made suing every LSD dealer and user from in the 50's 60's and 70's?

Wtf?
posted by prostyle at 9:45 AM on October 23, 2006


So from what I can tell in this thread MDMA will help exasperate my anecdotage if I lighten up and stop thinking critically.
posted by srboisvert at 9:53 AM on October 23, 2006


The latest research on MDMA was that it pruned the nerve endings off, forcing them to grow shorter, like a bush, and its not just a metaphor because it happens to trees too. Same effect for meth, supposedly. Have no idea if this relates to the lycunae (swiss cheese) effect. As far as I know, the damage was said to equate to depression.
posted by Brian B. at 10:05 AM on October 23, 2006


My extensive research of this subject suggests that "crazy as a soup sandwich" is a really great turn of phrase.
posted by freebird at 10:20 AM on October 23, 2006


Shulgin had nothing to do with the Merck MDMA patent; he did, however, play a significant role in popularizing alternative uses for an abandoned compound.

as for whether or not his is still living, well, you can probably get a definitive answer to that question if you ask him.
posted by the painkiller at 10:20 AM on October 23, 2006


hey here's some anecdotal evidence: i used to have some friends in high school but then they started doing ex and now they're all drug casualties.

Here's some more anecdotal evidence: If your high school friends have started using "ex" (sic) within the last 5-10 years, the chances of them finding pure, uncut MDMA on the street are slim to none.

A vast amount of the street-market tablet-form MDMA isn't even MDMA at all. Often it's weird blends of Dextromethorphan (DXM), Methamphetamine, Amphetamine, Ephedrine, Ephedra or even MDA (a drug similar to MDMA), or all manner of combinatorial simulations of MDMA.

On the off chance someone does find something with MDMA in it, chances are good it also has amphetamine or methamphetamine in it.

Each of these non-MDMA additives carries their own risks and complications, especially under habitual use. And a cocktail of an unknown quantity and quality? Even more so via the wonders of synergistic effects.

Why? Because consumers want it, and because illicit drug cartels want to increase the addiction/craving response.

Because, frankly, MDMA all by itself isn't really much of a party drug. It's no where near as speedy or "up" as even a touch of speed, and not even remotely close to physically addictive. Pure MDMA - like other psychedlics, ethnogens and empathogens - has a very low abuse threshhold.

It has very acutely diminishing returns of effect when abused. IE, it stops working if you take it too often. Which can be as little as two to four times per month.

This is why pill testing is important. This is why legalization and regulatory oversight is important. This is why prohibitions fail, and why they're bad for society and culture.

God knows how many of those "casualities" (aka E-tards) are really just plain and simple methheads and tweakers dressed up in plastic candy jewelry with blinky lights and fat pants.
posted by loquacious at 10:29 AM on October 23, 2006


Better living through electricity can fix any resulting problems.

http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/6/860?etoc

Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 20, No. 6, 860-862 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0269881106067243
© 2006 British Association for Psychopharmacology

Electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of depression in a former ecstasy user

"Depression in former ecstasy users may not respond to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) possibly due to damaged serotonergic synapses following long-term heavy ecstasy use. We report findings in a patient suffering from MDMA-induced depression which was refractory to several antidepressive medications including selective noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) and SSRI. An add-on repeated bilateral electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) was able to achieve a stable remission of affective and cognitive symptoms with a follow-up of more than 1.5 years. Add-on ECT could be a treatment option in former ecstasy users with severe depressive disorders that fail to respond to SSRI and/or SNRI. Clinical trials are needed to evaluate further the usefulness of ECT in this patient group."
posted by hank at 10:45 AM on October 23, 2006


My Shulgin note was a brainfart. He was at Dow 40 years after the Merck patent. I knew that, and yet somehow the two thoughts were temporarily not allowed to co-exist in my head. It's Monday.

Anyway, the thing about suing on those patents was intended as a joke, but it would have been well within their rights, though wildly impractical.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:53 AM on October 23, 2006


Also, pastabagel:

late great Alexander Shulgin

Great, yes, but not late. He's still kickin'.
posted by dmd at 11:18 AM on October 23, 2006


It might be good for your brain, but it's got something in it that makes you dance like a complete prick.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:52 AM on October 23, 2006


freebird, et al. : "Crazy as a soup sandwich" is a quote from a fantastic Harlan Ellison short story, in his recent collection of short stories called "Slippage"

I'll spare you the quote, as it reveals a bit too much of the plot.

However, back to my loony-tunes friend.

First and foremost, he was one of those crazy people who would tell you a dozen crazy-ass things, none of which seemed plausible, and half of which, upon researching turned out to be true, and the other half, well, turn out to have some bearing in reality five years after you've never seen this guy ever again.

He was asking if I knew anyone with Parkinson's because he said a touch of mdma would effectively nullify their symptoms in the short term, and in the long term could be positively therapeutic, physiologically and psychologically.

In any event, if further research bears this out to be true, seems I lost one of my many bets with him, and owe him a dinner, wherever the hell he is.
posted by Freen at 12:07 PM on October 23, 2006


Divine_Wino: see Loquacious' comment above. Real MDMA actually makes most people quite disinclined to dance like an idiot, and more inclined to have breakthrough emotional and empathic experiences. Or so I've been told.
posted by Freen at 12:11 PM on October 23, 2006


I wonder how much money Eli Lilly and Sandoz could have made suing every LSD dealer and user from in the 50's 60's and 70's?

Heh.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Offers to sell... the proceeds from just one Grateful Dead concert would have netted them a fortune!
posted by three blind mice at 12:16 PM on October 23, 2006


Freen: Hey, long time no see. I told you so. Yeah, I'm a little crazy, it's ok. Erm, I'm sorry... I never forget a face but your name is eluding me, where'd we meet again?
posted by loquacious at 12:19 PM on October 23, 2006


Actually, I shouldn't joke like that. It's a small world.
posted by loquacious at 12:20 PM on October 23, 2006


Jimmy Buffet must be the smartest man alive.
posted by mpemulis at 12:28 PM on October 23, 2006




1) Re alcohol: actually, the evidence is pretty good that low-moderate doses daily are good for the brain in older people because they reduce the risk of cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. This has nothing to do with grapes because it doesn't matter if you drink wine, beer or whatever. And yeah, it's epi data-- but there's also animal data to support it.

2) Ditto everything everyone said about how the dose makes the poison-- and add that timing often matters too.

Methamphetamine may be helpful to the brain post-stroke, it now seems, some cannabinoids may help prevent Alzheimer's and MDMA may help Parkisonism.

A substance is not "good" or "bad" it just has positive or negative effects on particular people who take them at particular times with particular conditions in particular circumstances. Chemo is a horrid lousy recreational drug that will make you feel hideous-- doesn't mean it won't save your life if you have cancer and thereby potentially produce euphoria if it works.

This is why any drug policy other than regulation makes no sense-- and why prohibition fosters misunderstanding of what drugs are and how they work.
posted by Maias at 12:32 PM on October 23, 2006


So boys and girls, the moral is: Don't do E unless you're pregnant.

With Saul Garamond's child, preferably.
posted by The God Complex at 12:50 PM on October 23, 2006


I am not a pharmacologist, but I would hazard a guess that E is not specific enough to be very useful as a treatment drug. The Lipton research with MDMA helps point to an area of drugs and drug targets that might be more useful.

According to this abstract, L-DOPA used to treat Parkinson's has the side effect of worsening diskinesia (spastic movement) and MDMA might ameliorate this specific side effect through a seratonin pathway. That's not the same, however, as saying E can treat Parkinson's.
posted by zennie at 1:32 PM on October 23, 2006


Study: Vegetables may keep brains young

I'll stick with the veggies.
posted by stbalbach at 3:29 PM on October 23, 2006


"He was asking if I knew anyone with Parkinson's because he said a touch of mdma would effectively nullify their symptoms in the short term, and in the long term could be positively therapeutic, physiologically and psychologically."


Has anyone phoned Michael J. Fox on this?
posted by stenseng at 4:07 PM on October 23, 2006


Late to the party again, as always.

There are some misconceptions flying around about MDMA.

The below summarizes what you should know -

State of evidence on brain damage
(in short, "To date, the most consistent findings associate subtle cognitive, particularly memory, impairments with heavy ecstasy use. However, the evidence cannot be considered definite and the issues of possible pre-existing traits or the effects of polydrug use are not resolved.")

Course of use, abuse, dependence
(in short, "Use of designer drugs is widespread in our sample, but the probability of developing use disorders is fairly low (1.6%). The majority of the ESH users stopped their use spontaneously in their twenties (80% of the prior users without disorder, 67% of the prior abusers), but 50% of those that once had fulfilled DSM-IV criteria of dependence continued to use these substances.")

Mental disorders in Ecstasy users
(in short, "Analyses of temporal patterns of ecstasy use and disorder onset revealed that the first use of ecstasy was secondary to the onset of DSM-IV mental disorders in the majority of cases." - 88.4% of all mental disorders among putative Ecstasy users preceded first use and 80.4% of all mental disorders when substance disorders are excluded)
posted by daksya at 4:11 PM on October 23, 2006


This is the correct second link.
posted by daksya at 4:17 PM on October 23, 2006


Regarding the 'anecdotal evidence', David Nichols, no drug warrior himself, had this to say.
posted by daksya at 4:44 PM on October 23, 2006


1. If it feels good, do it. (Sorry, haven't said THAT for a while).
2. Everything in moderation.
3. Something Bill Burroughs said.
posted by Twang at 6:11 PM on October 23, 2006


The Shulgins - not only alive and kickin, but made it to burning man this year.

I saw him and his wife speak in New York a couple years ago, and I asked them if (in their 50 odd years of experimentation), they had seen any long term negative effects from any of the chemicals they experimented with. Their answer was no, short of a couple instances of triggering preexisting mental disorders.

I was part of the MAPS/LaRuelle MDMA study in 2003 (testing for long term effects on the H2 receptor in people who had done pure MDMA over 20 times), and after they tested me for cognitive skills, I asked how I did. The nurse said I scored higher than most of their control subjects.

Drugs certainly aren't for everybody, but I wish people would stop pissing on the damn parade without more facts under their belts.
posted by HellKatonWheelz at 9:24 AM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]


HellKatonWheelz: I was part of the MAPS/LaRuelle MDMA study in 2003 (testing for long term effects on the H2 receptor in people who had done pure MDMA over 20 times)

Do you recall the title of the study? I can't find any post-2000 publication on MDMA with LaRuelle as author either at PubMed or at MAPS' online bibliography.
posted by daksya at 1:12 PM on October 24, 2006


I saw him and his wife speak in New York a couple years ago, and I asked them if (in their 50 odd years of experimentation), they had seen any long term negative effects from any of the chemicals they experimented with. Their answer was no, short of a couple instances of triggering preexisting mental disorders.

Wow! A whole one person mentions this!!!!

I guess I'll have to be the party pooper to tell empath and all the others to please quit it about how this drug is wonderful for everyone.
Personally, I don't have the right brain chemistry for it. And I know of another who now likely has permanent issues because of it.
So, if 2 out of a couple hundred people who have tried result in horrific experiences and have permanent problems because of it make it worth to give a fucking warning?

You people who get so positively emotional about this drug get pissed off because the government is keeping you from it and its wonders... Well guess what?
I'm extremely pissed off that the government doesn't tell me the truth about it to give me a believable warning to stay the fuck away.

So all you people who are trying to get everyone to try it and think it will only do good PLEASE FUCKING SHUT THE HELL UP.

Sure, I don't know if it was the MDMA or whatever they cut it with, but I sure as hell am not going to risk it.

So please, if you have a family history of mental issues, and you think you might be borderline or already have something, do realize that trying mdma, emphatemines or various other drugs can push you over the edge for the rest of your life!

oh, and drugs can push you over the line for potential physical problems too! (and I don't mean from addiction!)
Well damn! Fuck me!

So the lesson is, everyone is different. Not just in brain chemistry, but our physical bodies as well. Be careful!
posted by brygo at 5:05 PM on October 24, 2006


Brygo, methinks you ought to lay off the emphatemines before you post...
posted by stenseng at 6:00 PM on October 24, 2006


dude, you need to calm down!

So, if 2 out of a couple hundred people who have tried result in horrific experiences and have permanent problems because of it make it worth to give a fucking warning?

I think the fact it's illegal is supposed to be a warning!!!!

2 out of a couple of hundred is 1% with noticable side effects. Compared to the shit some over the counter drugs 'can' do to your body i'd say they are good odds.

The 'e' you took was probably less than 10% mdma, I'd get angry with your Government for making it illegal and putting your life more at risk than if it was controlled.

I'm really sorry life has been unlucky for you so far, but no-one here has said 'take drugs kids!'

So the lesson is, everyone is different. Not just in brain chemistry, but our physical bodies as well. Be careful!

I doubt there's a single person commenting here that disagree with you on that. But remember, peanuts can also kill you if you happen to be allergic!!

Life is a lottery.
posted by twistedonion at 5:17 AM on October 25, 2006


Yeahhhh I know I was a little over the top... sorry about that.

But what frustrates me is these kids who are practically demanding to establish the idea that these drugs are great for everyone. That's what needs to stop.

Yes I know people with severe peanut and gluten allergies. Heck I even know a chinese guy with quite an allergy to bamboo.

But the issue here is that people are trying to get kids to ignore the warnings and tell them they have nothing to worry about. And you can't trust the government warnings because they are just blanket statements and unintelligent.

I'm really sorry life has been unlucky for you so far, but no-one here has said 'take drugs kids!'

Ummm I think the intention of some of the posters actually is to try to tell people it's absolutely ok to take e.
posted by brygo at 11:06 AM on October 25, 2006


« Older TSA Alert: US Bans Vegemite....  |  Stallion breeding device... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments