Report - Ecstasy does not cause brain harm, dangers greatly exaggerated

Bodhisopha · 20-02-2011 12:46AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

Ecatasy however is gauranteed
To make you act like a spastic!

Like this guy?

NSFW - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d62_1298100537

Makes your dick shrink too...temporarily.

strobe · 20-02-2011 12:48AM

Kasabian wrote: »

FFS people openly condoning the use of illegal drugs is far from fcuking cool.

Children, why are people not thinking about them?

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/229/98183-106343-helen-lovejoy_large.jpg

pragmatic1 · 20-02-2011 12:49AM

Metallitroll wrote: »

i've seen a bunch of these cases. also left lurching around with their head leant forward at an unnatural angle a.k.a. monged out

E is the designer drug fiction predicted, making peope feel invincible and indestructible, gods gift, jesus' appeaser etc, that stuff makes hippies appear like agit militants. talk about a cop out disco go'ers weren't even that full of it in travolta's day - its a deceptive drug makes you feel like supersoul, but the irony is every e steals some of your soul. and that is irretrievable

Apart from the "makes hippies appear like agit militants", every single part of what you described can be applied to alcohol. Just add random acts of violence, road deaths, addiction and social problems. But hey its legal.

Metallitroll · 20-02-2011 12:54AM

saywhatyousee wrote: »

you are sort of right i suppose,you will never feel as happy again as you did when you took your 1st one

no, i was quoting that i know cases of what he said, that if you take too many at a time and enjoy it too much you can be left perma-vacant. high-risk i've seen to many e casualties, not just the gradual whittling away of soul/mind with each one

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Apart from the "makes hippies appear like agit militants", every single part of what you described can be applied to alcohol. Just add random acts of violence, road deaths, addiction and social problems. But hey its legal.

yeah i know i don't really drink

i despise it more because it killed my da n is the only legal

saywhatyousee · 20-02-2011 12:58AM

Metallitroll wrote: »

no, i was quoting that i know cases of what he said, that if you take too many at a time and enjoy it too much you can be left perma-vacant. high-risk i've seen to many e casualties, not just the gradual whittling away of soul/mind with each one

yeah i know i don't really drink i despise it more because its the only legal

i know. your first time is your best time though well in my expierence anyway

rorymcgrory · 20-02-2011 12:58AM

Kasabian wrote: »

Mate drops 1 E, has a great night, dances, laughs and has good time.
Fast forward 6 months mate is dropping 8 to 10 E's .
Fast forward 12 month's mate is in looney bin as he has lost touch with reality.

Kasabian's conclusion Ecstacy does harm some people. Report findings are questionable in this test case.

Are you off your head?

Metallitroll · 20-02-2011 01:08AM

rorymcgrory wrote: »

Are you off your head?

off the head is when you are on e isn't it, skagging, rushing off ur head loosening your belt to the sound of electronic metronomes and diva acapellas, the probability of a ghey encounter heightened tenfold

rorymcgrory · 20-02-2011 01:12AM

Metallitroll wrote: »

off the head is when you are on e isn't it, skagging, rushing off ur head loosening your belt to the sound of electronic metronomes and diva acapellas, the probability of a ghey encounter heightened tenfold

No idea MetalTrolley,

I'm so out of my brains right now its not funny. I'd love to climb inside your arsehole and die....

pragmatic1 · 20-02-2011 01:45AM

Metallitroll wrote: »

off the head is when you are on e isn't it, skagging, rushing off ur head loosening your belt to the sound of electronic metronomes and diva acapellas, the probability of a ghey encounter heightened tenfold

Too much human trafffic methinks.

orourkeda · 20-02-2011 01:47AM

Amber Lamps · 20-02-2011 01:54AM

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Like this guy?

NSFW - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d62_1298100537

Cunt Cops :mad:

Too much of anything is bad for you really. For sure its the crap thats mixed with them that causes problems. Just look after your body, eat well, dont mix your drugs.

having said that white doves ftw

20-02-2011 08:21AM

E is safer that alcohol, it's a simple fact.. Anyone who argues that point is blatently wrong.

Sticky_Fingers · 20-02-2011 08:53AM

Kasabian wrote: »

Mate drops 1 E, has a great night, dances, laughs and has good time.
Fast forward 6 months mate is dropping 8 to 10 E's .
Fast forward 12 month's mate is in looney bin as he has lost touch with reality.

Kasabian's conclusion Ecstacy does harm some people. Report findings are questionable in this test case.

Sorry but that does not prove anything. Just because your mate has no self control is a problem with your mate,not the drugs themselves. Would you blame KFC if your mate ate too much of their chicken and died of a heart attack?

alandublin15 wrote: »

the brains already damaged before taking it, that obvious.
if people are willing to take brain altering substances that have been mixed by a first year chemistry drop out and his dealer mate from god knows where, using a recipe on the back of a napkin.
then theres no need for further brain damage.

Generalise much? By the by producing MDMA would definitely beyond the abilities of most university chemistry graduates. It's not something you can just cook up in the kitchen over a weekend, it's a very involved and delicate process that requires great skill.

Kasabian wrote: »

There are a couple of posts already on this thread saying that it is ok.
AH is not the WHO.

There ae young kids that read this forum and advocating drug taking isn't very bright.

Thats cool, lets just keep telling the kiddies a bunch of horsesh!t about drugs just to scare them straight. Lets not let a small piddling thing such as the truth or valid scientific research get in the way of our moral outrage and fear of anything that challenges our own position on the subject.

Your comments here can be distilled down into a far more AH friendly form:
"won't somebody please think of the children"

syklops wrote: »

A friend of mine died after taking half a tab. Fail argument is fail.

How did he die, what chemical process spurred on by taking ecstasy resulted in his death? Was it just as a result of the half tab he took or was there other issues involved? Unless you can state that it was an adverse reaction to the drug on its own without any other factors than its not the fault of the drug. If your friend had died due to a bad reaction to a peanut would you blame all peanuts and support there banning on public health grounds?

Kasabian wrote: »

I am sure there is something in the charter that covers this thread and where it is headed.

FFS people openly condoning the use of illegal drugs is far from fcuking cool.

Just because people have there own opinion regarding the illegality of certain drugs does not IMO breach the charter. No one here that I can see has asked for drugs, offered drugs or told people how to obtain drugs. I don't "condon" drug use, it is not my place to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their lives anymore than it is your place.

20-02-2011 11:17AM

Meh. It's true though. If ecstasy pills were just pure mdma they'd be graaand. But most of them these days aren't. What got me was all those pills that were just BZP a few years ago...turns you into a paranoid mess! Or there was Mcpp as well, was it? Nasty yuck! Would never take "ecstasy" again.

ScumLord · 20-02-2011 12:39PM

Kasabian wrote: »

Mate drops 1 E, has a great night, dances, laughs and has good time.
Fast forward 6 months mate is dropping 8 to 10 E's .
Fast forward 12 month's mate is in looney bin as he has lost touch with reality.

Kasabian's conclusion Ecstacy does harm some people. Report findings are questionable in this test case.

Your friend isn't at all typical, your friend there is the worst case scenario a tiny minority in the same region as those who are allergic to peanuts. The vast majority are more than likely like me, did the pill scene for a few years but life eventually gets in the way and now I only get to do them once in a blue moon.

I've seen people go loopy on drugs, one person. The thing was though he was loopy before he started taking drugs.

midlandsmissus · 20-02-2011 01:14PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Your friend isn't at all typical, your friend there is the worst case scenario a tiny minority in the same region as those who are allergic to peanuts. The vast majority are more than likely like me, did the pill scene for a few years but life eventually gets in the way and now I only get to do them once in a blue moon.

I've seen people go loopy on drugs, one person. The thing was though he was loopy before he started taking drugs.

Yeah but the thing is how can you ever know what **** its been mixed with. My friend and I toOk e's at a fEstival years ago. She ended up in hospital and I had double vision for a wk. Its the crap it's mixed with that will kill you.

alandublin15 · 20-02-2011 01:15PM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Generalise much? By the by producing MDMA would definitely beyond the abilities of most university chemistry graduates. It's not something you can just cook up in the kitchen over a weekend, it's a very involved and delicate process that requires great skill.

so lets assume the producers are chemists/doctorates/pharmacists who are capable, they are skilled people who could do quite well for themselves in a law abiding society, using their skills for some good.
but they have chosen to break the law and produce banned substances which they know are sold without supervision, rather than put their skill to use in helping people.

so what kind of morals might they have?
could they be described as responsible?
could they be described as law abiding?
could they be described as risk takers?
do they produce under annonimity?
do they risk legal or financial consequence?
would they risk substituting a dangerous ingredient?
who is managing the assumed chemists work/deadline and would they be the understanding kind?
are the ingredients traceable?
who produced your last yoke?

Mike 1972 · 20-02-2011 01:23PM

Kasabian wrote: »

Mate drops 1 E, has a great night, dances, laughs and has good time.
Fast forward 6 months mate is dropping 8 to 10 E's .
Fast forward 12 month's mate is in looney bin as he has lost touch with reality.

Kasabian's conclusion Ecstacy does harm some people. Report findings are questionable in this test case.

An alternative conclusion would be that your mate is a bit of an idiot ?

ScumLord · 20-02-2011 01:24PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yeah but the thing is how can you ever know what **** its been mixed with. My friend and I toOk e's at a fEstival years ago. She ended up in hospital and I had double vision for a wk. Its the crap it's mixed with that will kill you.

That was partly what turned me off them originally, I just wasn't getting MDMA any more. I don't think the people doing drugs now even know what MDMA should be like and the standard has fallen even more.

Spunge · 20-02-2011 01:27PM

It must be a lot cheaper to use BZP or mephedrone or whatever new stuff they use in them than actual MDMA, and they can still still them as ecstasy. I think people mainly look for pure MDMA crystals now as actual pills rarely deliver.

wandatowell · 20-02-2011 01:32PM

its a scumbag knacker drug

Bottle_of_Smoke · 20-02-2011 01:44PM

life would be so much more fun if MDMA was legal. I had a pill on new years eve it was a real eyeopener to how desperate my mates looked whilst really drunk. E doesnt make you stupid like alcohol.

I got chatting to loads of girls whereas they were basically told to get lost by all of them. Paradoxical situation though - you're not arsed scoring and even if you do it must affect bloodflow or something because lets just say it had the opposite effect to viagra!

WolfForager · 20-02-2011 01:49PM

wandatowell wrote: »

its a scumbag knacker drug

Be this some sort of super race ye be on about?

Sticky_Fingers · 20-02-2011 02:09PM

alandublin15 wrote: »

so lets assume the producers are chemists/doctorates/pharmacists who are capable, they are skilled people who could do quite well for themselves in a law abiding society, using their skills for some good.
but they have chosen to break the law and produce banned substances which they know are sold without supervision, rather than put their skill to use in helping people.

so what kind of morals might they have?

I suppose the same morals as any person who produces drugs for profit be they small time producers or massive pharma companies.

could they be described as responsible?

All depends on whether they use the utmost care during the production of the drug. Do they care about purity and standards, do they have any "professional" pride in their work.

could they be described as law abiding?

That it a stupid question, obviously what they do is illegal, the pertinent question is is it immoral. I would say no, as long as they are providing a safe (compared to other drugs, legal or otherwise) product then I am in no position to moralise or condemn.

could they be described as risk takers?

Does a bear like the smell of its own farts, how the hell do I know? As with any group of people there who be risk takers as well as individuals who are risk adverse. I would hazard a guess and say that there are more risk takers within the group since they risk legal sanction.

do they produce under annonimity?
do they risk legal or financial consequence?

Again silly questions, of course they risk legal consequences hence the need for anonymity.

would they risk substituting a dangerous ingredient?

I am fully aware that there are producers that cut their drugs with absolute muck, this however does not mean they all do. It also avoids the question whether or not their activities should be illegal in the first place. I am sure you are aware that there are many cases where completely legit companies have cut corners and sold contaminated goods all in the name of profit, plastic rice anyone.

who is managing the assumed chemists work/deadline and would they be the understanding kind?

Yep, because big pharma companies have never ever released drugs onto the market without fully understanding their side effects or worse actively covering up dangerous/deadly effects caused by drugs all in the name of profit.

are the ingredients traceable?

No idea, I would presume not, another reason to legalise the industry IMO.

who produced your last yoke?

Generalise much;)
I have never taken MDMA or any recreational pill in my entire life. I occasionally smoke a bit of weed but that is the total extent of my illegal drug adventure. I find it galling that you assume that just because I point out the complete hypocrisy and idiocy that I feel exists in the whole drug debate I am some some of pill popping manic.

Snowie · 20-02-2011 02:10PM

mines a bag of doves thanks

Dudess · 20-02-2011 02:13PM

Who are all these people that die of taking ecstasy? I know heaps of people who take the drug recreationally and have done so for years and years and years and they're all alive and well. All have greatly decreased their usage all right - 10 years ago it was every weekend, now it's once every few months for special occasions. That general pattern seems to be the same across the board. I know two people who were heavy E users and are mentally ill, but I don't know for definite whether that's because of the drug - and the amount they used to take was stupid anyway (one guy took 30 in one weekend once).

Just because a person doesn't like the idea of drugs (and that's totally fair enough) doesn't mean there's a need to resort to plucking "fatalities" from the air. The fact is: recreational drug use is nowhere near as harmful as the hysteria media would have you believe, and that's not easy for some to accept, but they should.

Cutting it with harmful substances - seems dubious to me. Why would drug-dealers want to kill their customers? I'd say it's more likely they're cut with unharmful substances in order to cost less to produce.

Mike 1972 · 20-02-2011 02:24PM

Dudess wrote: »

Cutting it with harmful substances - seems dubious to me. Why would drug-dealers want to kill their customers?.

In fairness it does happen (albeit not to the extent portrayed my the media) "harmful" does not necessarily equate with fatally so and the "cutting" can take place anywhere in the chain and need not necessarily be the work of low level drug dealers.

Isint contamination (intentional or otherwise) one of the main arguments put forward in favour of legalisation

finnezzia · 20-02-2011 02:27PM

I think everyone's kinda missing the point. The article doesn't say that MDMA use does not lead to damage, it says that MDMA alone can't be said to cause damage. It says, staying up dancing like a maniac, drinking, smoking cigarettes, and not eating for hours ARE damaging to your body. Basically the things you do when you take it.

sleep and fluid deprivation – factors that are themselves known to produce long-lasting cognitive effects

I'm all for personal choice on the matter and don't think it's a dangerous drug at all, but don't kid yourself that there are no potentials for negative effects - especially with chronic use.

And though it's obviously cut with other things, it's a bit of a cop out to blame all negative effects on that.

amacachi · 20-02-2011 02:28PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

life would be so much more fun if MDMA was legal. I had a pill on new years eve it was a real eyeopener to how desperate my mates looked whilst really drunk. E doesnt make you stupid like alcohol.

I remember in a club once it was painfully obvious which few of the hundreds there were drinking instead of doing other things.

Dudess wrote: »

Who are all these people that die of taking ecstasy? I know heaps of people who take the drug recreationally and have done so for years and years and years and they're all alive and well. All have greatly decreased their usage all right - 10 years ago it was every weekend, now it's once every few months for special occasions. That general pattern seems to be the same across the board. I know two people who were heavy E users and are mentally ill, but I don't know for definite whether that's because of the drug - and the amount they used to take was stupid anyway (one guy took 30 in one weekend once).

I like this chart comparing the number of deaths related to a drug and how many were reported in the media. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/11/6/1257523718987/Information-is-beautiful--001.jpg Also there were plenty of cross-cases where a several things were named as factors so one death may be counted several times.

Just because a person doesn't like the idea of drugs (and that's totally fair enough) doesn't mean there's a need to resort to plucking "fatalities" from the air. The fact is: recreational drug use is nowhere near as harmful as the hysteria media would have you believe, and that's not easy for some to accept, but they should.

It's not like the media would be an industry where lots of drugs are taken either.

Cutting it with harmful substances - seems dubious to me. Why would drug-dealers want to kill their customers? I'd say it's more likely they're cut with unharmful substances in order to cost less to produce.

It's the usual thing of painting all dealers as scumbags who see making money as a secondary benefit to just spreading evil. :pac:

Mike 1972 · 20-02-2011 02:31PM

finnezzia wrote: »

I think everyone's kinda missing the point. The article doesn't say that MDMA use does not lead to damage, it says that MDMA alone can't be said to cause damage. It says, staying up dancing like a maniac, drinking, smoking cigarettes, and not eating for hours ARE damaging to your body. Basically the things you do when you take it..

Taking MDMA causes people to smoke cigarettes ?

Interesting variant on the "gateway drug" theory I must say.

Report - Ecstasy does not cause brain harm, dangers greatly exaggerated

Comments