Posted by revaaron on July 11, 2007, at 22:20:35
In reply to Re: A different thought., posted by F00TBALL on July 11, 2007, at 13:59:15
> I'm going to have to disagree with you. Take a
> look at this comprehensive study published this
> year that ranked 20 different drugs from most
> dangerous to least dangerous.
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026205,00.htmlSorry, I don't buy it. This list sucks. It would be easier to critique if the criteria were listed. Sorry, but any list the 20 most dangerous drugs that has buprenorphine higher on the list of danger than solvents is *completely* without credibility.
The definition of "danger" used by this list is pretty skewed in some direction considering the kind of neurotoxicity that even non-habitual occasional solvent abuse carries.
> The media has given Ecstasy a bad rap, but it's
> not nearly as dangerous as Heroin or most other
> illegal drugs.The media gives *all* drugs (except tobacco and alcohol) a bad rap, I agree with that entirely.
However, if you think heroin is less dangerous than MDMA, then you've got some more research to do. It depends on what level you take it; as a impure street drug heroin is worse, but that has more to do with the dangers of injecting anything than heroin (or other opiates) as a drug. Pure heroin is safer, not neurotoxic, and while the addiction to opiates isn't a good thing, it is managed relatively easily. Not to down play the dangers of illicit IV drug use, but the idea of heroin being inherently a super-dangerous drug is based in the same kind of drug war propaganda you're asking me to ignore.
The dangers of heroin use would be almost entirely solved by the end of prohibition. The dangers of exist MDMA regardless of how pure your pills are. The danger of ODing on heroin is pretty low except when people mix it with other drugs, especially other downers like alcohol or benzos. The safe margin for MDMA is probably no worse, but the same risk of mixing it with other drugs is there.
However, none of that addresses much more practical issues I listed, to recap:
1. A reliable supply of actual MDMA dose is pretty hard to come by. Unless you are buddies with a chemist, your chances of having access to pure MDMA it next to nil.
Getting actual MDMA (not MD*, d-,l- or meth-amphetamine, ephedrine, DXM, LSD, 2C-*) is certainly possible, but there wouldn't be a thriving community around identifying what are actually in "ecstacy" pills. Knowing the amount of substance in the pill is next to impossible.
...and even if you had access to pharmaceutical grade MDMA:
2. Using MDMA for a few days in a row changes the user's subjective from the magic of MDMA to something closer to "speed." This effect is not uncommon amongst users using MDMA only once a week at parties.
3. Price. $60/day for pills that may or may not be MDMA?
Even most pro-MDMA sources acknowledge that MDMA use, let alone habitual/daily use carries with it a few serious risks, including neurotoxicity.
Sorry, but like I said, I don't buy it. I completely reject the erroneous mythology of psychedelic drug = good and euphoriant = bad that pervades so much of drug culture. It's half government propaganda and half feel good ignorance. Like I said before, taking MDMA a few times, even a once a month probably carries very little risk of damage if done so responsibly and safely. I do agree that some folks have derived great therapeutic value, allowing people to get over various mental blocks.
Using MDMA a few times and having it help you makes it a therapeutic not an antidepressant, which is a common trait among many psychedelic drug. Mescaline and S. divinorum have been used for this kind of positive change but I don't think you would call them "antidepressants."
If you actually know someone who has benefited from using MDMA as an regular-dosing antidepressant successfully, I'd be interested to hear more. What kind of dose do they use? How often?
Aaron
poster:revaaron
thread:767449
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070710/msgs/769085.html