![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 27, 2004, at 14:05:19
About darn time!
Posted by PsychoSage on February 27, 2004, at 16:01:00
In reply to MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!!, posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 27, 2004, at 14:05:19
> http://www.maps.org/mdma/
>
> About darn time!
Well, this is interesting, but I don't think they mean recreational grade MDMA or ecstacy with heroin in it which is extremely common.MDMA or some related substance was used decades ago by therapists, so the idea is not novel.
If this were a prescription drug it would be scheduled, and it would be abused left and right as people would take huge doses if they were low powered pills.
I think MDMA has gone the way of LSD, and the stigma of its abuse will be too big to overcome.
Adminstering this drug during therapy will carry a lot of legal issues.
I saw a piece on TV about a woman who has her clients take E, and they have sessions together. She is somewhere in the Southwest.
I think it's a ridiculous idea.
Some would argue that it would just point people to the street version.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 27, 2004, at 20:12:52
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!!, posted by PsychoSage on February 27, 2004, at 16:01:00
> > http://www.maps.org/mdma/
> >
> > About darn time!
>
>
> Well, this is interesting, but I don't think they mean recreational grade MDMA or ecstacy with heroin in it which is extremely common.That's a myth -- heroin has never been found in analyzed seized tablets. Why would it be? Manufacturers wouldn't adulterate MDMA with such a pricey drug (now MDA, MDE, amphetamine, methamphetamine, cathinone, caffeine, DXM, and ephedrine are another story...). Not to mention that it's orally inactive at the terribly low dose that could potentially fit into a tablet of MDMA.
> MDMA or some related substance was used decades ago by therapists, so the idea is not novel.
Right, and a surprisingly large number of therapists use it illicitly in their practices to this day -- it's just nice to see it's finally being investigated as the potentially life-saving compound that it is.
> If this were a prescription drug it would be scheduled, and it would be abused left and right as people would take huge doses if they were low powered pills.
It wouldn't be available by prescription at the pharmacy -- single doses would be given to patients undergoing supervised 6-8 hour psychotherapy/introspection sessions.
> I think MDMA has gone the way of LSD, and the stigma of its abuse will be too big to overcome.
Many would have said the same about GHB, and now thousands of people take it regularly under the brand name Xyrem for narcoleptic cataplexy, among other conditions. After all, MDMA is just an amphetamine; amphetamine and methamphetamine are both available as outpatient prescriptions.
> Adminstering this drug during therapy will carry a lot of legal issues.
That's why MAPS is joining forces with the FDA *and* DEA on this.
> I saw a piece on TV about a woman who has her clients take E, and they have sessions together. She is somewhere in the Southwest.
>
> I think it's a ridiculous idea.Millions with debilitating, thusfar untreatable PTSD (or other conditions) might express a different opinion...
> Some would argue that it would just point people to the street version.
If they want the street version, it's not like it's inaccessible as it is. Drug abusers will go looking for a high regardless.
Besides, some would argue that it would turn people *away* from the street version. After experiencing the effects of pure MDMA, most of the adulterated crap sold on the streets will seem highly undesirable.
Posted by djmmm on February 27, 2004, at 23:27:03
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!!, posted by PsychoSage on February 27, 2004, at 16:01:00
> > http://www.maps.org/mdma/
> >
> > About darn time!
>
>
> Well, this is interesting, but I don't think they mean recreational grade MDMA or ecstacy with heroin in it which is extremely common.
-- ecstacy/MDMA has never had heroin in it...the amount of heroin needed to elicit a response (taken orally) is far too much to put into a tiny MDMA pill, it is also not cost effective. You may be thinking of MDEA, which has more sedative qualities
> MDMA or some related substance was used decades ago by therapists, so the idea is not novel.--it was MDMA, because out of all the related ring substituted amphetamines (MDMA, MDA, MDEA, etc) MDMA is completely unique in the it elicits empathy, no other drug does this.
> If this were a prescription drug it would be scheduled, and it would be abused left and right as people would take huge doses if they were low powered pills.
--true, but most scheduled 2,3,and 4 drugs are abused
>
> I think MDMA has gone the way of LSD, and the stigma of its abuse will be too big to overcome.--true, unfortunately most of the negative neurotoxicity theories were flawed and Methamphetamine was used inplace of MDMA...funny how Methamphetamine is a precription drug...The legality of MDMA has more to do with Patent laws than true science
>
> Adminstering this drug during therapy will carry a lot of legal issues.--I disagree... with the majority of flawed neurotoxicity studies, MDMA MAY be a relativly BENIGN drug...
>
> I saw a piece on TV about a woman who has her clients take E, and they have sessions together. She is somewhere in the Southwest.
>
> I think it's a ridiculous idea.--I believe the Idea is for clients to take 3 moderate doeses of MDMA over the period of a year or so...hardly dangerous, given that drs prescribe methamphetamine for DAILY use to hyperactive kids
> Some would argue that it would just point people to the street version.
--Possibly, but that can be said for many abused legal drugs
Posted by interject79 on February 28, 2004, at 1:08:25
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!!, posted by djmmm on February 27, 2004, at 23:27:03
> > > http://www.maps.org/mdma/
> > >
> > > About darn time!
>
> > MDMA or some related substance was used decades ago by therapists, so the idea is not novel.
>
> --it was MDMA, because out of all the related ring substituted amphetamines (MDMA, MDA, MDEA, etc) MDMA is completely unique in the it elicits empathy, no other drug does this.
>
> *Good point.
>
> > If this were a prescription drug it would be scheduled, and it would be abused left and right as people would take huge doses if they were low powered pills.
>
> --true, but most scheduled 2,3,and 4 drugs are abused
>
*Not so that I know of. Studies?
> >
> > I think MDMA has gone the way of LSD, and the stigma of its abuse will be too big to overcome.
>
> --true, unfortunately most of the negative neurotoxicity theories were flawed and Methamphetamine was used inplace of MDMA...funny how Methamphetamine is a precription drug...The legality of MDMA has more to do with Patent laws than true science
*The controls were not up to par, but that doesn't mean MDMA isn't neurotoxic. And I think it has much to do with science. At the same time, one can distort matters enough to make tap water appear neurotoxic. I think science can offer some answers about the drug, but so far scientists have provided mostly technically disappointing studies (especially Ricaurte, sp.?).> > Adminstering this drug during therapy will carry a lot of legal issues.
>
> --I disagree... with the majority of flawed neurotoxicity studies, MDMA MAY be a relativly BENIGN drug...
>
> *I don't think it's conclusive that MDMA is at all benign. We may reasonably conclude that studies are inconclusive. We might also infer that MDMA is potentially not (dopaminergically) neurotoxic, but to say it's benign is another story...
> >
> > I saw a piece on TV about a woman who has her clients take E, and they have sessions together. She is somewhere in the Southwest.
> >
> > I think it's a ridiculous idea.
>
> --I believe the Idea is for clients to take 3 moderate doeses of MDMA over the period of a year or so...hardly dangerous, given that drs prescribe methamphetamine for DAILY use to hyperactive kids> *I think MDMA would really be helpful for those needing a 'breakthrough'--in the right environment. As ASV originally mentioned, it might really benefit PTSD sufferers. Further, in cases where individuals are suffering emotional agony due to terminal illnesses, let 'em get in some smiles...but this gets touchy fast.
Methamphetamine is rarely prescribed anymore, especially to children. Amphetamine (d,l) is a different story, but studies DO NOT conclude it's dangerous when prescribed at the right dosage for the right reason. Quite the contrary. Methamphetamine is significantly more dangerous because of the methyl addition. And 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine is probably more dangerous still, at least in vitro. (In vivo data are inconclusive or insufficient or what have you--so far.)
> > Some would argue that it would just point people to the street version.
>
> --Possibly, but that can be said for many abused legal drugs.
I'd hope MDMA is useful in cases of PTSD and others. I think it's ethically unwise to outright deny someone a potential 'lifesaver' because of human error and ignorance. And sometimes it's unwise even when there are no errors and no ignorance. Still I take issue with some of your remarks, in a friendly way.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 28, 2004, at 2:56:05
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!! » PsychoSage, posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 27, 2004, at 20:12:52
Ecstacy in the UK is commonly cut with heorin.. heroin is pretty cheap here.. And yes, it has been proved.
And yes, after trying pure mdma the street cut stuff will be seen as rubbish.. which is why there would quickly be a big market in medical grade mdma..
I'm not saying don't test it.. it can be a wonderful drug.. I'm just saying that the things you are denying DO and will happen
Nikki
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 28, 2004, at 10:44:35
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!! » Ame Sans Vie, posted by NikkiT2 on February 28, 2004, at 2:56:05
> Ecstacy in the UK is commonly cut with heorin.. heroin is pretty cheap here.. And yes, it has been proved.
That's intriguing, I'd never heard that before... I know for a fact that this doesn't occur in the U.S. though. All the rumors of ecstasy being cut with heroin and cocaine have been entirely disproven and were usually just a way dealers would boost sales. Would you happen to have any links concerning this U.K. phenomenon that I could check out?
> And yes, after trying pure mdma the street cut stuff will be seen as rubbish.. which is why there would quickly be a big market in medical grade mdma..
Pharmaceutical grade MDMA would be practically impossible to get for the sake of abuse -- at least as hard as Xyrem and government pot. It's not going to be prescribed on an outpatient basis.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 28, 2004, at 14:22:50
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!! » NikkiT2, posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 28, 2004, at 10:44:35
I only have it on paper I'm afraid.. was in an Issue of New Scientist from 10 years back.
I know I have taken ecstacy containing heroin as I know the feeling having taken heroin too.. I know I have taken ecstacy conating one hell of alot of other nasty thing (ketamin was the worst).. and over here, people want as pure as possible, so the dealers using it as a selling point would be pointless.
I've also done pure (relatively speaking!!) MDMA though.. the difference is staggering to the average "pill".Theres a blackmarket for anything.. I don't know what Xyrem is I'm afraid. But I know I can get methadone within about an hour black market.. valium.. most things that have an abuse potential. (And no, just cos I know how, doesn't mean I do it these days)
Like I said, I'm not against this as MDMA can be a wonderful drug.
I just wanted to point out come mis conceptions
Nikki
Posted by DepNYer on February 28, 2004, at 16:46:24
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!! » Ame Sans Vie, posted by NikkiT2 on February 28, 2004, at 14:22:50
Just a thought to place out here. PTSD is a different disorder than depression, BP, or GAD, but may occur in concert with these other illnesses. If you look at the mechanism of action of MDMA, it causes a massive release of serotonin, which is responsible for it's intense pleasuarable response. It also decreases the total amount of serotonin available as a result of this outpouring. Given the probable implication of decreased serotonin as a possible mediator in depression, I personally would think long and hard about putting it into my brain. Perhaps it is useful in allowing a person with PTSD to address the event which triggered their disorder, within the context of therapy, but it's use in depression would be, IMHO, unlikely, given that it's long term use results in the depletion of serotonin reserves.
Posted by Theta99 on February 28, 2004, at 17:46:48
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!! » NikkiT2, posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 28, 2004, at 10:44:35
Being a forensic chemist in the US (desert southwest) I have literally tested tens of thousands of MDMA tablets. Numerous times the undercover officer would report that these tabs have Heroin or Cocaine in them. I have never found any such mixtures after analysis was finished.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to find it, but in the U.S. at least, it is incredibly rare. I know that it does happen in the U.S. because controlled government newsletters to forensic scientists have reported cases where other drugs were found mixed with MDMA.
But I agree that in the standard sized MDMA tablet, with the purity of cocaine and heroin we have in the US, it would have little to no effect in most drug users.
Posted by Questionmark on February 29, 2004, at 20:49:32
In reply to Re: MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!! » NikkiT2, posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 28, 2004, at 10:44:35
Alright, listen. i would like to clear up a commonly held but absurd misconception about ecstacy. It DOES NOT HAVE HEROIN IN IT. (Or, at least, hardly hardly ever if ever, and not nEArly as much as so many think). This is a ridiculous notion for 3 reasons: 1) heroin is not absorbed through the GI tract/ taking orally (i'm almost positive); 2) heroin is much more expensive than MDMA so why would anyone want to put it in a pill of E (or replace E with it) and then sell it? 3)Well, i don't know what 3 is, but also i have never seen an actual pill of heroin before.
i'm so sick of ignorant morons who don't know anything about anything spreading rumors about sh*t that is complete horse crap! There is not heroin in ecstacy pills!! i'm sorry to get so ticked off about this, i just can't stand when people hold opinions as fact without any evidence to support it. And i've told people before when they've said that there's heroin in ecstacy (sometimes or always-- people believe different things) that that's not true and the reasons why. And they're like "nuh dude, it's true. Blah blah blah heroin in ecstacy." You MORON!! HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?! DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPPORT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING EXCEPT YOU HEARD FROM SOME MORON WHO HEARD FROM SOME MORON WHO....??!!!!!! AH people annoy me.
i'm sorry. i'm a little irritated today. No offense anyone-- well, not too much at least.
Posted by PsychoSage on March 1, 2004, at 18:13:06
In reply to Re: h in e: truth., posted by Questionmark on February 29, 2004, at 20:49:32
> Alright, listen. i would like to clear up a commonly held but absurd misconception about ecstacy. It DOES NOT HAVE HEROIN IN IT. (Or, at least, hardly hardly ever if ever, and not nEArly as much as so many think). This is a ridiculous notion for 3 reasons: 1) heroin is not absorbed through the GI tract/ taking orally (i'm almost positive); 2) heroin is much more expensive than MDMA so why would anyone want to put it in a pill of E (or replace E with it) and then sell it? 3)Well, i don't know what 3 is, but also i have never seen an actual pill of heroin before.
> i'm so sick of ignorant morons who don't know anything about anything spreading rumors about sh*t that is complete horse crap! There is not heroin in ecstacy pills!! i'm sorry to get so ticked off about this, i just can't stand when people hold opinions as fact without any evidence to support it. And i've told people before when they've said that there's heroin in ecstacy (sometimes or always-- people believe different things) that that's not true and the reasons why. And they're like "nuh dude, it's true. Blah blah blah heroin in ecstacy." You MORON!! HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?! DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPPORT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING EXCEPT YOU HEARD FROM SOME MORON WHO HEARD FROM SOME MORON WHO....??!!!!!! AH people annoy me.
> i'm sorry. i'm a little irritated today. No offense anyone-- well, not too much at least.
Cocaine-- NOheroin or some kinda opiate that makes ya yak before the fun gets rolling so to speak-- YES
seen it, done it whatever it is it's qualitatively very different.
I am not a child anymore, so it's been a while [i am 25yo]. Therefore, I realize i am out of touch, and most people on E were not yaking out there to begin with I can admit. So, most of the E probably did not have opiates in it.
However, either way I would not be so keen in using the positive aspects of the experience of using it when discussing it as a tool for PTSD people. I think the energy behind any excitement for it as a therapeutic tool comes from the alleged harmlessness of using the drug occasionally in the recreational setting.
Ecstacy would have a very tiny limited market if it were used in therapy in the beginning. Otherwise, it will become as mishandled as the prescribing of antidepressants by primary doctors if it were used for other therapy issues or mental conditions.
i can envision an MDMA-like substance finding its way into the lives of mental health patients, but it would be analgous to the way amphetamine is given to children for productivity and symptom control. It would not be for fun or for a party night or a club/rave. It would be strictly for theraputic purposes, so the connotations with communing experiences and pleasurable massages and dancing til dawn should go out the door.
There should and would not be any moral imperative to remove any reprehension that exists now for taking E and therefore, allow a child/teenager to take E in the future as a rite of passage and necessary experience for any young American since it has a meritorious use in theoffices of therapists. I think that if it finds its way to the market then a lot of people will think that it was a good thing all along, and it is as harmless as beer. Anyone who gets excited over the widespread sanctioned, free-flowing use of ecstacy has issues of drug use stigma and very little sincere support for PTSD people who could benefit from this.
I guess I mean to be a joykill here, but i am skeptical of the value of MDMA for therapy. I would hate to see it become something that big corporations profit from the same way they profit from alcohol, cigarettes and many pharm drugs that are only partially effective.One experience might create a way to get in touch with feelings and events from the past, but long-term healing is something that can not happen in one trip. I think many patients would be too eager to want to do the experience again just like many recreational drug users would want to do a drug again because they would think it's their life or death right to break further ground. Where do you draw the line? Who cares? Doctors, therapists, and pharmaceuticals would make something out of this if 60% took it succesffully and 40% did not. That is how things seem to work these days. Many drug users eventually figure out that a drug that adds an experience to their life yields nothing utilitarian.
Mentally and emotionally humans don't exist on the ecstacy plane of experience on a daily basis. The drug creates a product that is bound by that trip. The memory of the session in therapy is bound by that trip as well. How would a PTSD person be able to deal with talking and remembering on a non-ecstacy state of mind still?
Let us take this idea: It's easy to admit things when you are drunk, but when you are sober you realize that the admission doesn't have as much weight because it doesn't have as much transformational power as a breakthrough while sober does.
Posted by scott-d-o on March 2, 2004, at 9:03:59
In reply to Re: h in e: truth., posted by PsychoSage on March 1, 2004, at 18:13:06
> However, either way I would not be so keen in using the positive aspects of the experience of using it when discussing it as a tool for PTSD people. I think the energy behind any excitement for it as a therapeutic tool comes from the alleged harmlessness of using the drug occasionally in the recreational setting.
>
> Ecstacy would have a very tiny limited market if it were used in therapy in the beginning. Otherwise, it will become as mishandled as the prescribing of antidepressants by primary doctors if it were used for other therapy issues or mental conditions.
>
> i can envision an MDMA-like substance finding its way into the lives of mental health patients, but it would be analgous to the way amphetamine is given to children for productivity and symptom control. It would not be for fun or for a party night or a club/rave. It would be strictly for theraputic purposes, so the connotations with communing experiences and pleasurable massages and dancing til dawn should go out the door.
>
> There should and would not be any moral imperative to remove any reprehension that exists now for taking E and therefore, allow a child/teenager to take E in the future as a rite of passage and necessary experience for any young American since it has a meritorious use in theoffices of therapists. I think that if it finds its way to the market then a lot of people will think that it was a good thing all along, and it is as harmless as beer. Anyone who gets excited over the widespread sanctioned, free-flowing use of ecstacy has issues of drug use stigma and very little sincere support for PTSD people who could benefit from this.
>
> I guess I mean to be a joykill here, but i am skeptical of the value of MDMA for therapy. I would hate to see it become something that big corporations profit from the same way they profit from alcohol, cigarettes and many pharm drugs that are only partially effective.
>
> One experience might create a way to get in touch with feelings and events from the past, but long-term healing is something that can not happen in one trip. I think many patients would be too eager to want to do the experience again just like many recreational drug users would want to do a drug again because they would think it's their life or death right to break further ground. Where do you draw the line? Who cares? Doctors, therapists, and pharmaceuticals would make something out of this if 60% took it succesffully and 40% did not. That is how things seem to work these days. Many drug users eventually figure out that a drug that adds an experience to their life yields nothing utilitarian.
>
> Mentally and emotionally humans don't exist on the ecstacy plane of experience on a daily basis. The drug creates a product that is bound by that trip. The memory of the session in therapy is bound by that trip as well. How would a PTSD person be able to deal with talking and remembering on a non-ecstacy state of mind still?
>
> Let us take this idea: It's easy to admit things when you are drunk, but when you are sober you realize that the admission doesn't have as much weight because it doesn't have as much transformational power as a breakthrough while sober does.
I don't entirely agree with this sentiment. Many people use benzodiazepines for phobias and after continued exposure to these previously feared situations, many are able to taper off without a relapse of symptoms. Given, this occurs over the long-term and doesn't work if the individual is attributing the success entirely to the compound.Of course, MDMA could not be used in this way since tolerance develops so quickly (some people claim they only feel any different at all during their first trip.) However, I would argue that for people with a disorder like PTSD, the experience of being able to access certain areas of the brain, even for a brief time, which were previously unavailable even to themselves could be a life-changing experience. I think there is a possibility that MDMA or other psychedelic drugs could liberate the individual in this respect.
I express some apprehension in MDMA specifically however, because I wonder what utility the amphetamine/stimulant aspects of the compound could serve. I don't have much personal experience with psychedelics but I wonder if mescaline would be better suited since it is a chemically related phenethylamine minus the stimulant.
In the few experiences I've had with MDMA, I have never forgotten anything that has occured, and though a "breakthrough" while sober may have more "transformational power" than one while under the influence of a substance, that doesn't mean that experience carries no weight at all; and I'm sure there are many patients out there who will *never* be able to achieve that breakthrough in a sober state.
I'm not even going to get into the politics involved in all of this and why it will surely never happen, at least not in the USA. I could ramble on for hours but will refrain from doing so.
scott
Posted by Questionmark on March 3, 2004, at 10:37:47
In reply to Re: h in e: truth., posted by scott-d-o on March 2, 2004, at 9:03:59
Insightful posts from both of you, PsychoSage and Scott-d-o. i'm not sure what to think exactly.
However, Scott, i did wanna say that i think for a person with PTSD (or any serious anxiety disorder for that matter), using a psychedelic like mescaline could be, well, terrible, at the least. Not saying it would be necessARily, but the odds would probably be great i imagine.
PsychoSage, that's interesting that you feel so sure that you have had E with some opiate in them before. If that's the case, then i believe it. However, i would still be strongly inclined to believe that it was not heroin, but some other opiate. But even so, that's interesting.
Posted by PsychoSage on March 3, 2004, at 11:12:02
In reply to Re: h in e: truth., posted by scott-d-o on March 2, 2004, at 9:03:59
> > However, either way I would not be so keen in using the positive aspects of the experience of using it when discussing it as a tool for PTSD people. I think the energy behind any excitement for it as a therapeutic tool comes from the alleged harmlessness of using the drug occasionally in the recreational setting.
> >
> > Ecstacy would have a very tiny limited market if it were used in therapy in the beginning. Otherwise, it will become as mishandled as the prescribing of antidepressants by primary doctors if it were used for other therapy issues or mental conditions.
> >
> > i can envision an MDMA-like substance finding its way into the lives of mental health patients, but it would be analgous to the way amphetamine is given to children for productivity and symptom control. It would not be for fun or for a party night or a club/rave. It would be strictly for theraputic purposes, so the connotations with communing experiences and pleasurable massages and dancing til dawn should go out the door.
> >
> > There should and would not be any moral imperative to remove any reprehension that exists now for taking E and therefore, allow a child/teenager to take E in the future as a rite of passage and necessary experience for any young American since it has a meritorious use in theoffices of therapists. I think that if it finds its way to the market then a lot of people will think that it was a good thing all along, and it is as harmless as beer. Anyone who gets excited over the widespread sanctioned, free-flowing use of ecstacy has issues of drug use stigma and very little sincere support for PTSD people who could benefit from this.
> >
> > I guess I mean to be a joykill here, but i am skeptical of the value of MDMA for therapy. I would hate to see it become something that big corporations profit from the same way they profit from alcohol, cigarettes and many pharm drugs that are only partially effective.
> >
> > One experience might create a way to get in touch with feelings and events from the past, but long-term healing is something that can not happen in one trip. I think many patients would be too eager to want to do the experience again just like many recreational drug users would want to do a drug again because they would think it's their life or death right to break further ground. Where do you draw the line? Who cares? Doctors, therapists, and pharmaceuticals would make something out of this if 60% took it succesffully and 40% did not. That is how things seem to work these days. Many drug users eventually figure out that a drug that adds an experience to their life yields nothing utilitarian.
> >
> > Mentally and emotionally humans don't exist on the ecstacy plane of experience on a daily basis. The drug creates a product that is bound by that trip. The memory of the session in therapy is bound by that trip as well. How would a PTSD person be able to deal with talking and remembering on a non-ecstacy state of mind still?
> >
> > Let us take this idea: It's easy to admit things when you are drunk, but when you are sober you realize that the admission doesn't have as much weight because it doesn't have as much transformational power as a breakthrough while sober does.
>
>
> I don't entirely agree with this sentiment. Many people use benzodiazepines for phobias and after continued exposure to these previously feared situations, many are able to taper off without a relapse of symptoms. Given, this occurs over the long-term and doesn't work if the individual is attributing the success entirely to the compound.
>
> Of course, MDMA could not be used in this way since tolerance develops so quickly (some people claim they only feel any different at all during their first trip.) However, I would argue that for people with a disorder like PTSD, the experience of being able to access certain areas of the brain, even for a brief time, which were previously unavailable even to themselves could be a life-changing experience. I think there is a possibility that MDMA or other psychedelic drugs could liberate the individual in this respect.
>
> I express some apprehension in MDMA specifically however, because I wonder what utility the amphetamine/stimulant aspects of the compound could serve. I don't have much personal experience with psychedelics but I wonder if mescaline would be better suited since it is a chemically related phenethylamine minus the stimulant.
>
> In the few experiences I've had with MDMA, I have never forgotten anything that has occured, and though a "breakthrough" while sober may have more "transformational power" than one while under the influence of a substance, that doesn't mean that experience carries no weight at all; and I'm sure there are many patients out there who will *never* be able to achieve that breakthrough in a sober state.
>
> I'm not even going to get into the politics involved in all of this and why it will surely never happen, at least not in the USA. I could ramble on for hours but will refrain from doing so.
>
> scott
This is exactly the kind of false confidence that i was thinking would rear itself from the possible use of MDMA for therapy. First of all, benzodiazipines are not mind-manifesting. They do not have a positive effect in the sense they add something qualitatively different in a significant way.The word "trip" that is used above refers to exactly what the drug is used for recreationally. A trip is a vacation from reality.
There are other ways to find spiritual expansion. Many psychedelic drugs are not legitimate as a means toward spiritual transport because they are not a ritualistic exercise woven into the fabric of most people's lives. Drugs don't mean the same thing to those in the non-drug culture, so people won't be so philosophical about hallucinations or make attributes about the experience that kids with glowsticks do or trippers from the 60s did. They wouldn't even have a vocabulary for the feelings that would be without hard techno music and the visual stimulantion from gyrating sweaty bodies in a dark dance club. There would be no one to kiss or massage.On low doses, people can function on benzos. No one should be running around on maintenance MDMA therapy. That is what antidepressants are for. ADs hit the same neurotransmitters but they are not intended to cause an explosion in the head of a patient that leaves an impairing hangover. The effects of the drugs we talk about in here are supposed to be subtle and work over time relative to MDMA. ADs are supposed to have a uniform effect [not talking about side effects or adverse effects]
on a patient every second of the day. The medicine stays with you.Regardless of complicated and inconsistent politics regarding laws governing substances from alcohol and tobacco to marijuana, MDMA for therapy doesn't sound efficacious enough for enough people on its own merits or lack thereof. Marijuana may have medicinal value and be outlawed, but ecstacy is far more limited. If it ever got out there it would be third-line treatment instead of something celebrated to "liberate people's minds" which is more rhetoric from the drug-experimenting community who believe that they exist in some kind of legitimate cultural movement. It's not the 60s. The significance of LSD was in the context of something grander, and that is not happeneing with ecstacy now.
Using benzos for whatever reasons is something that has to be done repeatedly. To extinguish a phobia with or without anxiety reducing ADs or benzos requires continual treatment, and results are usually lost when the drugs are discontinued. This is a widely established pattern that you can find in any abnormal psych textbook. No one is going to be taking MDMA several times a week or even weekly to work out their troubles unless the substance becomes completely modified and innocuous. The properties and associations of street MDMA as an overwhelming hallucinogenic of vivid colors and emotionally resonant sounds have to go out the door. I guess I am pointing to a substance that is not even MDMA anymore but a much improved derivative that probably wouldn't inspire a political movement from the liberal, drug-permissive enclaves of society.
That derivative really has to extract the fun out of ecstacy and be made with economy and efficiency in mind to spare patients from any harm and society from any potential abuse.The experience of street MDMA is like a calm, loving manic, psychotic state. For anyone who knows psychotic mania without drugs, a nice episode isn't anymore compelling as a means toward psychological progress.
The desired theraputic state the researchers are trying to create is very obvious. I'd infer that they want a speedy, calm, trusting state that can evoke associative, free-flowing thinking. Those are the attributes of ecstacy they want to exploit. Perhaps those qualities can be generated by another similar new compund to be created, but something that is a lot less exciting than the love drug of the 90s: E.
I don't see this lack of use of MDMA or the delay in seriously funded research for it as a tool for therapy as being a cultural, political issue. In a practical way, MDMA as it exists today is not necessarily as compelling or positive in the same way it makes many recreational users happy and joyful for 4-6 hours.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 4, 2004, at 2:27:01
In reply to MDMA (ecstasy) to be studied for use in therapy!!!, posted by Ame Sans Vie on February 27, 2004, at 14:05:19
> About darn time!
I'd like to redirect this thread to Psycho-Babble Alternative. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20040225/msgs/320005.html
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.