It's definitely an interesting article, but I think here it's really worth to click around a bit and get aware of the context it's posted in.
The site it's published on, Filter Magazine, describes itself [1]:
> Our mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights.
Sponsors include [2] Juul Labs, Phillip Morris International, The American Vaping Association and Knowledge Action Change (see below).
The author of the article herself is a grantee of Knowledge Action Change [3]. KAC describes itself [4] as an advocacy organization for "tobacco harm reduction" which basically means promoting "alternative" tobacco products such as vapes. [5]
None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased.
I think it makes a difference that the author is not some random person who reflects about her drug use growing up and comes to the conclusion that it actually had lasting positive effects - but someone who actively lobbies for drug use as part of her job.
> None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased.
Who in their right mind would read this piece and think it unbiased? It is absolutely and unapologetically biased. This isn't journalism. It's closer to an op-ed, and is one person's account of their experiences.
Did you really think you needed to put in the effort to engage in this ad hominem? That readers would be so ignorant as to see this piece as one of objective, factual journalism when it so clearly isn't?
> If I work for an advocacy group, do I become biased?
Lol. Yes, of course you do. If nothing else then for the fact that suddenly, what you write in your articles can directly influence the relationship you have with your superiors, could get you fired or could anger the sponsors of your advocacy organization and effect the wellbeing of the entire organisation.
Everybody's biased in everything all the time to some degree or other - that's just part of the human experience.
That said, I think bias is generally only harmful when it's concealed from people. In this article, which is unabashedly and clearly pro-drugs, I don't see the harm in bias - people can evaluate it freely and judge accordingly.
I don't think that's quite right - after having read this, I feel pretty comfortable assuming that the author is expressing this pro drugs point of view because she really believes it and wants to write about an important part of her life.
It might be true that there's bias on the part of the publication in the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces, but I don't really see how that affects me, the reader, particularly in the context of having clicked on this on HN and read it with no context about the publication.
> > The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you'
> I don't think that's quite right [...] there's bias [...] the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces
You're basically agreeing with parent post here.
> I don't really see how that affects me
The difference is the commercial interest and the extent to which more readers are exposed to the opinion because of paying writers who are aligned with the message.
I'm pro drugs, but I don't write articles about it.
The author of the article gets paid to write it.
On the other hand, I'm also pro blockchain, and I do get paid to make blockchain, so if you see me write an article about how privacy is important and how Stripe and Paypal are screwing over people, you may agree with both of those, and they're honest expressions of my opinion, but because there is a correlation between my beliefs and what I get paid to do, I may be financially incentivised to express those beliefs.
So you could claim that the investors are, to some degree, channelling money into popularising a belief.
Is it? I thought bias was "I have a distorted view of reality"
per wikipedia:
>Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error.
I agree that you don't have to have a distorted view of reality to present one, and that would be bias.
My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with error, either explicit or by omission. Claiming that a conclusion is biased is the same as it is wrong or incomplete.
My question is rather can someone be biased and correct?
If I'm paid to advocate for something, does that mean that everything I say is biased, and therefore incorrect?
"My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with erro"
I wouldn't say that. I would only say that the veracity and completeness of the presentation is unknown, but what is known is that there is some reason to question and corroborate it beyond the universal baseline reason to question everything.
The further the legal boundaries are in the ard drug direction, the further they are from regulating the cigaret market which is currently (and rightfully) under attack in some countries (cf new zeland, russia..)
Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.
That’s true, but my view is even if the original article is unbiased, the selection process by which it was chosen to appear on this periodical with the reach it has introduces some statistical bias.
Only theoritically, in an abstract sense only applicable in lab settings.
In real life and in practice there is always some influencing, some internal censorship, some gloves being kept on, and so on. And it's ten times so if the person wants to continue to receive more sponsorships in the future...
Obvious based on what? Is there recent polling on this?
This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion at all in 2022, with major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking and rapidly evolving/shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general.
I think you're overblowing both the "major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking" and the "shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general".
Some (all?) states legalized weed use in some cases, it's not like it's some welcome acceptable thing in the average global working/middle/upper class family, and E/MDMA much less so...
I don’t agree that this is overblown at all, and I was primarily asking exploratory questions.
There is strong evidence of a major shift right in front of us in the form of new laws (federal/country-wide in some locations), legal dispensaries, and a new and exploding (legal) industry that is bringing in significant money. Main stream documentaries on Netflix about Mushrooms, a shift in tone regarding drug use in popular media, etc.
These laws are passing with increasing frequency because of that major shift in sentiment. If that shift had not occurred, these laws would not be as popular as they are.
Does that automatically translate to similar shifts for MDMA? That is less clear, but at a minimum, there is strong evidence that people do not buy the historical fear mongering that has always cast a shadow on marijuana.
Anecdotally, I know multiple people who now enjoy the occasional edible despite having very anti-drug views in decades past.
Hrm, I'm in my 40s. I got a criminal record at 20 for being caught in a club with 3 pills. It still didn't stop me. I continued doing Es for a long time. It was good at the time but I wish I hadn't done them. It's like a lot of other drugs, once you've done it everything becomes dull without it. I used to think about them all the time. Until it got to the point were I hated them. The come downs became horrific (once you've done a lot of them, hangovers don't come close).
I was given some mdma at a festival 5 years ago. I hated it. It was strong but I hated the feeling of being out of my mind.
Mainly I think all I got out of it was a ruined short term memory and wasted time recovering from endless nights out.
I don't look back with rose tinted specs. I regret it.
Well said. These drug-positive articles never appropriately discuss the negative side effects of the lifestyle in a way that seems realistic.
Several people from my youth never made it to adulthood to regret the things they did as a result of drugs. Even "harmless" drugs like MDMA have consequences.
There’s much more literature and comment on the negative aspects of drug use IMO.
I’d agree that discussing only the upsides in a general debate would be stupid, even unethical. But on a personal account? Probably not.
Believe it or not, some people can have very positive interactions from regular drug use.
I’ve used E and mushrooms maybe a few dozen times each and I don’t have anything bad to say except the brutal comedowns with E the next day, and an upset tummy with shrooms. Can’t say the same with weed or alcohol - plenty of bad interactions with those.
Some people are high-functioning drug users. Look at Joe Rogan, whatever you think of the guy, it’s difficult to object that he’s productive, fit and family-orientated while consuming copious amounts of weed.
I would become lazy, unmotivated and depressed if I smoked 1% of what Rogan or other high-functioning stoners smoke, but I think it’s as interesting to know about their stories as it is to hear about people whose lives have been sadly ravaged by drugs.
Is it appropriate to discuss the negative side effects in this article? It's clearly a positive article about drugs - that's apparently just from the title. Must every article about a topic cover the positives and the negatives, even when it's a piece relating someone's personal experience that's clearly not intended to be unbiased news or science reporting?
Also, would you hold the same standard to drug-negative articles? Must they cover the positive side of drugs in a way that's realistic?
I won't accuse you of strawmanning but this misrepresents my statement.
It's would be weird to drop in figures about drug deaths in this article or something like that. I don't see why that would be relevant.
But it'd be good if there was some more critical reflecting done. Perhaps your drug days would be remembered less fondly if a friend died of an OD? Or maybe you were shielded from the criminal elements of drugs. Perhaps you avoided catching any of the lifechanging STDs that run rampant amongst drug users.
It's the "it can't possibly happen to me" mentality that these nostalgia-fueled articles have that rubs me the wrong way.
With that said, I do think anti-drug messaging needs to confront other positive aspects of drug use, particularly in controlled clinical settings. Many staunch anti-drug people haven't even heard of it because they simply don't encounter it in their usual reading material.
The thing that never worked for me in school was messaging like "drugs will kill you". Well yes that's true. But drugs are way more insidious than this. In my experience they are subtle in how they mess with your mind and over all well being. They take away my drive for natural highs, and natural highs are usually good things. For example exercise, accomplishments and learning. The come downs destroy free time. But worst is they seem to reset my happiness level to lower. Small things that should bring joy no longer do. Thankfully those effects have been temporary for me. I'm glad my drug use is over. I was only ever a weekend partier. Still managed to complete a degree and hold down a job. But I'm done with drugs for good.
> Perhaps your drug days would be remembered less fondly if a friend died of an OD?
Perhaps having a friend who died of an OD isn't actually that common amongst MDMA users on the dance scene?
Why does it rub you up the wrong way that this person has positive recollections?
Drug deaths from MDMA are not very common, certainly compared to drug deaths from (for example) alcohol. As such, someone who did ecstasy at dance clubs in their youth may be less likely to have lost a mate than those who drink. Maybe that’s why she doesn’t talk about that?
> it can't possibly happen to me
But there's the rub - 'it' didn't.
Are we all supposed to be sorry for having had a good time and come away happier for it?
Recreational horseback riding is statistically more deadly and more likely to result in serious injury than ecstasy use. [0]
Of course everything has risks. But nobody demands an article about the pleasures of equestrianism to include a warning about traumatic brain injury and paralysis risks.
David nutt is brilliant. I loved his book drink. However I think that horse riding Vs mdma point is a bit limited. I think there are dangers worth facing as the overall experience probably helps you grow as person, so horse riding has the dangers, the skills, the discipline and the responsibilities that go with it. In my mdma taking years I don't think I met anyone who benefited from it. In fact I know of quite the opposite.
Edit: btw I think all drugs should be decriminalised.
The problem is that the consequences are different for every person. We treat drugs as though messing with them has a guaranteed outcome, but it's not true.
Drugs effect everyone differently. People use them for different reasons. People experience different outcomes from taking them.
You can talk about 'appropriate' but you're assuming that they must talk about the negative aspects. Why? If some people have a positive experience with drugs why do we need to pretend they're lying?
I did ecstasy a number of times in my 20s. All sorts of other things too. In my 40s intense drug experiences no longer appeal, but I enjoy all sorts of facets of life - friends, fine food, the countryside…
Maybe I’m just lucky, but this “normal life is all dull” never seems to have hit me.
As someone who still take mdma occasionally in their thirties the few times I can actually go clubbing and have a couple of free days after when it’s not going to matter I’m somewhat tired, it’s very much a question of how much.
Taking MDMA while partying is undeniably fun and does enhance the experience at least for me. It’s very much about the physical sensation, the energy and what it does to how you feel the music. Plus it doesn’t massively alter my judgement the way alcohol does and the come down is mild provided you don’t take a lot.
I think I can understand both side of the fence however. Part of the issue is that most of the people who are extremely attracted to party drugs are both young and not very reasonable in how they use them.
What you said reminded me of the bird video about withdrawal and habituation: https://youtu.be/HUngLgGRJpo (which of course may be biased in the other direction)
But that's my stance on drug use as well: It's pretty irrelevant how great your time is while you're on it if it turns your life into hell whenever you're not on it.
> once you've done it everything becomes dull without it
It sounds like you're saying that life is permanently less interesting. I'm sorry that happened to you. This is not a side effect that I am aware of. Are you sure that this came from the drug?
Known side effects are temporary depression (among others). 5-HTP may help ameliorate it.
I haven’t used illegal drugs, but I am bipolar. Mania is a high that nothing else has ever matched.
I have benzos for anxiety. And they really make an exciting social event so much brighter and clearer. I’m so comfortable in my own skin, I can just be around absolute strangers.
It’s hard to compare to those highs. My daily live comparatively dull. But I’ve accepted the tradeful because the other things that come with mania are not worth it.
Occasionally, I get a glimpse of what I had. I should walk away, but I don’t. And pay for it later.
Benzos are also misused and highly addictive, i lived with an addict once and the moodswings where crazy when those were in the mix, tried it myself once it makes you very confident until you mix that with alcohol what a rollercoaster, never again im happy it can be used for good tho! :)
After the first time trying it all I could think about was doing it again. I remember walking home with my friend who was doing it for first time and both of us agreed it was the best thing we'd ever done. We did it again shortly after.
I've done MDMA and other hallucinogens a lot and quite enjoyed then. I guess, for me, there is always the knowledge that it's not real. No judgment at all, though. Chemical balance is extremely personal.
It's kind of like going to a movie or a concert that I enjoy, but at the end it's nice to return. If the high continued I'd feel miserably unhappy despite the artificial chemical boost.
The only thing I have to add is that your MDMA might have been cut with something. Never take anything that you haven't tested, or where you trust the person you got it from to have tested it.
Testing is cheap and easy and could save your life. Always know what you're taking.
I had a college student who came to me as a trusted adult and asked about E (because their friends were doing it while in the Netherlands). I told them what I knew about the drug and that they should always test it. When asked "how do I do that," I was at a loss and couldn't find any useful info by searching sites that I wasn't afraid to browse. How does one get a legit testing kit without exposing themselves to risk?
rollsafe is a fantastic resource for harm reduction information. They have links to test kits from various retailers and instructions on how to use them.
They also have a page detailing a stack of supplements you can take to allegedly reduce the neurotoxicity of MDMA. I don’t know about the veracity of that information but the test kit info is spot-on.
But isn't buying these kits online essentially just a way to add yourself to a list of people who do illegal drugs? Maybe I am just overly paranoid, but I'd hate to see some college kid have their future ruined over something that shouldn't be, but is a crime.
Some paranoia is rational but in this case I would judge the potential risks: (I) extremely low probability of 'future' problems involving ordering testing kits which are not themselves illegal (II) high probability of youths doing illegal drugs (III) extremely high probability of illegal drugs being impure (IV) moderate probability of impurities being dangerous
You're already on the list of people who might do illegal drugs by asking this question.
Part of the reason I linked the page I did is because they go out of their way to provide options that are LEGAL in the areas they're being shipped to.
As a former heavy drinker, drinking responsibly is more about planning ahead while you're sober so you don't have to rely upon your drunk self to make the right call. Going to a bar? Take a cab or walk _to_ the bar, so you don't even have a car to drive home. Or, stay in and drink at home with friends and plan on the friends staying over the night.
You're right, though: put yourself in a situation where your drunk/high self needs to be responsible, and you're asking for trouble.
If you've already lost your ability to make those kinds of judgements, you've probably already had to much. That's not a problem you can work on in the moment, but it's something to reflect on when you're sober.
If you don't know what you're putting into your body, you're always making an irresponsible choice. You're trusting someone to tell you how it will affect you, how much is safe, and what the side effects will be. Plenty of women know that trusting someone to give you the substance you think you're getting can mean getting taken advantage of.
Being high doesn't implicitly eliminate all of your self control. As impractical as it might be, the smallest bit of planning and caution can save your life.
Edit: I knew the silent downvotes would come from people who are anti-drug and not willing to even try understanding another's experiences. I gave an honest description, but somehow an honest data point is unacceptable as it goes against what some people want to hear. If you downvote, please explain why because the issues of drug effects, drug value and (il)legalisation need a better discussion than what I keep finding on HN from a subset of people here. Please downvote for a reason, not because you can't accept what I say. <sermon ends, normal service will now be resumed>
---
Huh? Sounds like you overdid them big time. No offence but that sounds like a flaw in you, not the drugs (but yeah, that gets complex).
> The come downs became horrific (once you've done a lot of them, hangovers don't come close).
Double huh? I'm in a comedown from last night's E and... well, there is no comedown. As for 'hangover', I've never had one from E, ever. I seriously don't know what you've been taking. Maybe it just isn't your drug? Edit: it does sound like you seriously overdid it: "once you've done a lot of them"
All I can say is your experience has zero intersection with mine. I'm sorry what is wonderful for me didn't work for you.
I think the downvotes may be coming from what looks kinda like an ad hominem attack vibe. Could've been phrased a bit less rudely. [I didn't downvote btw, I mostly agree with you.]
A lot of people had bad experiences with 'E' for all kinds of reasons, from the old set & setting issue, to overdoing it, to mixing with other drugs, to dirty pills.
MDMA clearly has therapeutic value. There are also many people who've had transcendent experiences with it in the wild who absolutely do not regret it. Then there are those in between (one of my best experiences was followed by a massive comedown). Humans are differently abled when it comes to exploring and/or self medicating-- many if not most are likely better off going through establishment health care channels, but those seeking their own paths shouldn't be demonized.
Ouch. A re-read and I can see what you mean about it being a bit personal. I wish I'd said it differently.
But the experience was simply mine and I wasn't speaking for anyone else. I don't know of anyone who's had a bad time on them, except a couple who it just made them throw up. It was just a data point, and I was not comfortable about the talk of comedowns as if they were inevitable and awful because they aren't. I've no doubt they can be though as you and @Mezzie testify.
If clicking is too much work, here's the entire post: "Only a fool would consider any drug harmless, obviously all (including MDMA) can have consequences"
What you said elsewhere, I did not judge. I observed that here you acted agressive towards the shared bad experience of someone else, by saying the fault is with him and not the drug and then acted surprised because it was downvoted.
Edit: I would just recommend to you, reading what you wrote above another day and then maybe reevaluate your theory that you don't know what a hangover is
You haven't acknowledged you accused me of saying something I didn't, when I even said the exact opposite explicitly.
Again, please point out where I said "that mdma cannot be harmful".
> you acted agressive towards the shared bad experience of someone else
I did not intentionally (and that it came across that way is entirely my fault). My point was his experiences were very much not mine. Therefore only that his experiences were not universal (as mine equally weren't). It was a data point.
> by saying the fault is with him
I did not. I asked "Maybe it just isn't your drug?" which is reasonable given his bad experince with it.
I don't feel you are representing me in good faith at all.
I notice that rather than answering my questions, you've simply edited your post to suggest that I'm wrong in a different way (yes, I know what a hangover is). Well, I "just recommend to you" to try answering honestly, and not misrepresenting people. Your behaviour is quite typical of the hard-core anti-drugs people I've argued with on HN; that they have to be right because drugs are wrong, and any tactic however dishonest can be used to win the argument.
Dude, by your own standards, I could say look at my other posts in the same thread, where I clearly state, that I am not anti drugs. I am pro legalisation for every drug there is, because grown up humans should decide for themself, what is good for them.
But I am very against propagating quite unreflected, like you seem to be doing to my perception.
MDMA is very dangerous. Maybe not more than alcohol, or weed, but still not to be glorified. It might be useful and fun and even beneficial to some people, but I believe it is not beneficial to you, by the way you talk about it. Just my opinion, no need to "argument" any further.
Yeah, all you've provided is your opinion, no facts. And apparently you can psych-analyse me telepathically to diagnose my drug use as "not beneficial".
Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We've had to ask you this before. Eventually we ban accounts that keep doing it. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
Alan Watts said it about LSD - but equally applies to MDMA. Use it like a scientist uses a microscope. Use it to observe but then you go away and work on what you have experienced. Don't get fixated on the observation stage.
I saw a documentary about LSD with Watts and a bunch if otger people, including A. Hoffman interviewed. What I wonder about is why do people who have consumed LSD or are into psychedelics exhibit all sorts of new age artefacts around their homes?
I won't deny that there's a lot of drug users who believe in new age spirituality, but there's another angle to consider too.
Some people have a genuine academic curiosity about human belief systems and the nature of experience. It is similar to how a Anthropologist might have many artifacts in their home or a religious scholar would have different religious text.
It doesn't mean that do you believe in everything, as much as that means that you enjoy being curious and engaging with different ideas.
Some of these are due to philosophical insights that IMO (and many others’) psychedelics can confer. In particular they’re known for generating a sense of oneness and for revealing the deeply subjective nature of reality[0]. Buddhism has been exploring these ideas in depth for millennia, so I think psychedelic usage can push people in that direction pretty easily.
Dreamcatchers — rather indigenous culture broadly, at least in the US — also has a developed philosophy of oneness with nature. Again, when you see the insights psychedelics have to confer, it makes sense to go find the people who’ve been talking about those insights for millennia. Western thought is just an entirely different train. It’s all extremely valuable IMO but we have artifacts of western philosophies all around us every day. None of these are intended to remind us of The Big Ideas that one is likely to come across via psychedelics.
Colorful shirts: This is because you just appreciate certain patterns/colors more after seeing them on psychedelics. No clue how to describe this lasting impression but it is VERY real.
Pyramids/crystals: no clue but entirely possible they just fall into the same category as shirts for that individual (alongside things like kaleidoscopes).
[0] Note this is NOT some new age woo woo about quantum whatever. It’s the factual observation (made more obvious via meditation or psychedelics) that 100% of our experience of the world occurs via the “interpretation machine” that lives mostly inside our skull. Not one of us is making direct contact with “reality” as it exists beneath human interpretation.
The Amy Winehouse documentary really made this clear to me. She wins a Grammy which should be a peak of ones career as a musician and she tells her friend that "this is so boring without the drugs".
No, different kinds of drugs are different in kind.
I've never met anybody who takes MDMA to feel normal. Most people I know who use it do so once or twice a year and carry lessons from that experience that make sober life better.
Molly taught me to let myself dance, for instance. Or to joke around with strangers.
Sure, people who do it every weekend have a degraded sense of normal after a while, but that's not just an amplified stage of normal use, it's damage to their ability to regulate serotonin. Friends don't let friends do that to themselves.
Unhealthy usage patterns of other drugs may cause damage to other systems depending on which systems those drugs activate (e.g. dopamine, gaba, opoid, etc) but if a different system is damaged it's different in kind and not degree.
This all-drugs-are-more-or-less-the-same narrative is dangerous. You learn that drugs are bad (thanks D.A.R.E.), and then you learn that part of that was a lie.
What's a curious person to do next except try them all?
As for the non-curious, if you go around with an all-drugs-bad attitude and don't have and idea of what healthy usage looks like (because the healthy users are keeping it a secret from you), you're unavailable to help course correct a friend whose usage has started to become problematic. By the time the problem is so bad that they can't hide it anymore, the ideal time to speak up will have long since passed.
IMHO, and the spirit of my comment, was that anything can cause one to be jaded with everyday life if used in a way that it becomes a focus or outshines other healthy experiences.
But I understand the interpretation that "all drugs are on a spectrum of danger" is difficult to agree with unilaterally
It kinda is, because those are substances people fall into using habitually and constantly. (ex) Heroin users frequently talk about PAWS, which describes this, prolonged anhedonic dissatisfaction with life that can last months or years.
I don’t believe it applies in the same way to substances people use infrequently.
I reached heights of experience untold with MDMA on dance floors when I was younger. In my 40s I still get a kick out going to the zoo though, a walk in the countryside, solving a puzzle, or a visit to the pub with my mates.
Then you probably aren't experiencing nearly the degree of hedonic exhaustion that is being talked about. You might be near zero.
I don't think it's about drugs, it could be video games, but when you overload your brain enough, you may experience a kind of color washout of the experiences that don't overload your brain.
If it’s basically zero then that’s a difference in kind, not degree.
The point I’m making is you can’t take a quote from Amy Winehouse about how boring life is without drugs and apply it to people who have just experienced anything intense.
Amy Winehouse was likely in PAWS with severely altered brain chemistry. It’s not just that other experiences were pale in comparison to what she’d been doing, it’s likely she was chemically incapable of feeling very much positive and responding normally.
Bad dopamine hygene is a serious thing that should get more focus.
But MDMA is seritogenic, not dopaminergic, and bad serotonin hygene is predominantly a too-little problem and not a too-much problem (unless you're using drugs, then you've got to regulate both ways).
Nobody's complaining, so far as I know, that having too many socal connections is degrading their capacity to enjoy a cup of tea in solitude.
>Then you probably aren't experiencing nearly the degree of hedonic exhaustion that is being talked about. You might be near zero
I think this is the challenge of responsible drug use. Hedonic exhaustion might be actually zero or negative (making the rest of life better), depending on the person and use.
I think it has a lot to do with intent and moderation.
Another perspective: The box was never meant to be open. We are not meant to understand the full truth of the universe.
There are other boxes too, each box with a slightly different experience and each with a different price to pay. The price is irrelevant to the discussion though.
My question for you is, why is MDMA profound? Why the focus on this particular box. Why aren't you talking about the profound experiences generated by meth or heroin?
Because the experiences are different and MDMA is extremely low risk and for most people who take it life affirming in a way other drugs like alcohol and tobacco are not.
And yet there are many people of all ages who would disagree and say other drugs (including alcohol) were just as life affirming and low risk based on their own life long usage.
I'm just taking it up a level. I'm guessing the meth user looks at you and says,
"You clearly haven't taken Meth."
If MDMA users claim it's profound, is it really the same in the eyes of a meth user who has done both MDMA and meth? If the meth user can invalidate the experience with his own, then what does it say in general?
I challenge you to find a meth user that tells you meth is profound, opening experience that brings you closer to people and helps you know yourself.
(edit - rate limited so can't respond below. 'Meth' is a strong stimulant, with some associated euphoria, it's not a profound emotional experience like mdma. Yes I'm speaking from experience. Phenethylamine-derived drugs are massively varied in their effects, see also for example the true-psychedelic mescaline, 2C-x and, well, the whole of Pihkal)
I'm looking for a person who has done BOTH meth and MDMA and I want him to compare the experience of each. My guess is that Meth operates on another level of profoundness, one that is both different and significantly higher then MDMA.
My guess is that once you take Meth, MDMA isn't really that big of a deal anymore.
'Life affirming' is completely different to being fucked out of your head. MDMA can give you a stronger connection to the important things in life (love, relationships, your feelings) when used sensibly (just like many other drugs). Hard drugs like meth can become your life, no thanks..
I already stated the risk is irrelevant to the discussion.
Here's a better way to phrase the question. Has someone who has taken both MDMA, heroin and Meth care to explain the differences in "profoundness" or "life affirmation" levels of each drug?
I suspect ignorance is bliss. People who haven't taken MDMA don't know how profound it is. People who have taken MDMA but not Meth don't realize that MDMA is childs play and that Meth is even more profound.
That's not quite how drugs work. I've done many of them. They each have an effect that is distinct and separate from their risk profile and addiction properties.
Cocaine feels very different to MDMA and heroin is different still.
MDMAs effect is one of filling your brain and body with love, bliss, sexuality and euphoria. Every sense you have is now coloured with absolute pleasure.
That's a very specific feeling. Comparing the effects of drugs in a way that judges their relative value is usually not helpful.
For example MDMA isn't hallucination inducing like LSD.
Other drugs transport your consciousness to completely alien experiences of space and time.
MDMA isn't like that. You're still you and your experiences, experienced through a new lense of pleasure.
There is always overlap, the palette of chemicals to alter in your brain is limited and these drugs alter often the same ones in different ways.
It isn't the drug that is important, but the experience. That's subjective and as tricky as judging the beauty of art.
Cocaine for example is fun. It feels good. You're energised, uninhibited, and combined with alcohol products enhanced euphoria. But if cocaine is Jackson Pollock then MDMA is Georgia O'Keeffe.
I am not comparing coke and MDMA nor am I comparing LSD. I know the profiles of those drugs I am not referring to that. Those drugs have less overlap with MDMA.
Have you done MDMA AND heroin/Meth? More important meth. Because these drugs have a huge overlap when you examine the physiological effects. Pleasure, love and bliss are generated by the same chemical.
I have. They're not the same and i dont find meth profound or at all enlighting. Amphetamine based drugs have a very different effect. That's why ecstacy is usually a mixture of amphetamine and MDMA. MDMA for the emotion, speed so you can engage without just being a soft wobbly lovegasm.
I don't know of, first had or by proxy, another drug as gentle and wonderful as mdma.
It is my drug of choice, maybe once or twice a year because I feel it is unique in the ones I've tried. The risks are worth the reward.
MDMA is in a class of drugs called 'substituted amphetamines' which are a sub-class of 'substituted phenethylamines'. The chemical name for the drug ending in methamphetamine is not an indicator that it has the same effects as the drug methamphetamine. The following is from the 'phenethylamine' English language wikipedia entry as of 2023/01/14:
Many substituted phenethylamines are psychoactive drugs, which belong to a variety of different drug classes, including central nervous system stimulants (e.g., amphetamine), hallucinogens (e.g., 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine), entactogens (e.g., 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine), appetite suppressants (e.g. phentermine), nasal decongestants and bronchodilators (e.g., pseudoephedrine), antidepressants (e.g. bupropion), antiparkinson agents (e.g., selegiline), and vasopressors (e.g., ephedrine), among others. Many of these psychoactive compounds exert their pharmacological effects primarily by modulating monoamine neurotransmitter systems; however, there is no mechanism of action or biological target that is common to all members of this subclass.
Meth is a feeling of high alertness and impatients with the slowness of everything. MDMA is a feeling of love for all and just good vibes from all. The alertness of MDMA is overshadowed by the good vibes. Opiates are a feeling of warmness from euphoria, like a good orgasm, that lasts a long time.
There is a bit of overlap on feelings but Molly isn't like straight amphetamines and opiates don't feel the same at all. If I had to try to correlate the feeling of these substances to sober feelings here is what I would say. Amphetamines are like the anticipation/anxiety of a big event or meeting a new love. MDMA is like being in love, but with everything and everyone. Opiates are like a really long, whole body, orgasm. Just pure euphoria.
Many people say something like this about drugs, but it does not seem philosophically or logically sound to me. When you have coffee in the morning and have some increased mood from it does that make the whole day invalid? When you go a run and you body produces enjoyable neurochemicals in your brain, just like taking a drug, is that real? All experiences are just as real and valid regardless of what contributed to creating the experience - if you think otherwise then it seems very hard to justify such an opinion with consistent and sound logic
Plot twist: we are constantly constructing our feelings from emotionless data. If a drug changes the emotions you generate from data, that's no less valid.
All feelings, drug induced, or not aren't really there. None of it is real.
Truth is just an expression. I use it in the same light as "profoundness".
I understand the stigma associated with the drug. But the emotions generated by the drugs themselves are in reality actualized by the brain and that actualization cannot be invalidated. It is worth it to ask, think and wonder about this actualization even when you have no plans around taking the drugs yourself.
If you think MDMA is giving you a feeling of deep friendship with a perfect stranger, then you might be hallucinating the feeling of a long and strong relationship.
However, that's not really the feeling you're getting on molly. It's more recognizing the preciousness of our shared humanity. If done with a friend or a lover, this in itself is a genuine bonding experience. If done with a stranger, you're not expecting anything more after the experience, but it still feels valuable.
heroine and Meth are not hallucinogenic drugs.
I have never taken MDMA, but I did try DMT and psiloscybin. These experiences were profound.
Further, the risk is almost zero. DMT is anti-addictive. I took it few times, and I don't ever want to repeat it
The topic at hand here is not hallucinogenic drugs. MDMA is not hallucinogenic.
The topic at hand is centered around drugs that generate pleasure. You're a little left field with hallucinogenic drugs. I'm sure there's some sort of "profoundness" there as well but it's a different topic.
Yeah sure. Once I partied with people who were taking ecstasy so I took 1/5th to 1/10th of what they swallowed (powder). As a result I had a very light trip. Nonetheless I ended up grinding my teeth in my sleep for 1 year afterwards.
People who study drugs say you shouldn't take mdma. Or at least "less than once a year" (because these scientists really enjoy drugs).
Nope. One of the girl even confessed she wasn't doing mdma because 1°) it induced a depressive episode that lasted for a year. 2°) Had to wear a dental tray at night because of bruxism (=teeth grinding).
I have a friend who does mdma regularly (like once every 3 months). Suffers from bruxism too. When he goes to the dentist, he can tell he's a mdma user.
You're free to waste your health as you wish (also mdma lowers t-cell rate in the blood, they never get back to normal afterwards, a japanese man taking multiple Es a day even died of immunodeficiency). Personally I prefer a good brewage of ipomea heavenly blue or some hawaian baby woodrose.
Edit:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnptUdyDUKI&t=30m (timelink @ 30mins). It is said mdma is neurotoxic can induce permanent damages and trigger chronic depression.
Scientist: "I think mdma like no other drug has a much higher neurotoxic potential". Then the dubbing voice takes over. Activates subtitles. "MDMA is a special case [among other ego distorting drugs]. It is delicate to give recommendation of use for this drug and if somebody asked me my opinion I would say it's best to stay away from it".
As a seasoned user of MDMA you're right. It is a potent chemical. Used without a lot of moderation, it'll mess you up.
Once every 6 months max.
It can cause brain damage. Serotonin syndrome, depression and a whole host of things.
Yes, you'll grind your teeth while on it. (Not a year afterwards)
A hammer can also hurt you if you smash it into your face. A car will kill you if you drive dangerously.
It's a chemical. It can be used with a safety profile that makes the positive benefits worth it (like any drug or activity)
Responsible use of anything is important.
The thing is with MDMA is doing it daily won't produce the same effect each day. You run out of the brain chemistry it causes you to release all at once. There's an upper limit to frequency in exchange for pleasure and it is quite low.
> a japanese man taking multiple Es a day even died of immunodeficiency
I’m surprised he lived long enough to die of that.
MDMA is associated with bruxism but generally not prolonged past the day you take it/day after. Most users wouldn’t take it weekly (I knew some who would) or even monthly, let alone multiple doses a day.
YouTube videos are a poor source of information, I’m afraid.
I'm with computers since ZX80, now run my own IT company, knocking wood. I was heavily into DJ'ing for about 6 years of my life about 20 years ago. I'm talking MDMA, meth, all sorts of stimulants - multi-day partying, LSD, ketamine, whatever... Things I wish someone would tell me earlier:
- All this stimulation never, never goes without payment. MDMA is a stimulant. You always pay later with something. Think destroyed sinuses, which I can still feel 20 years later, ED, weight issues, bad teeth.
- Stimulants are not as addictive as what we call "heavy drugs," but they can easily become the way of life - there is a strong psychological addiction which leads to difficulties of moderation. If you are into pattern where they are available on a regular basis, it will be difficult to break out from all that stuff - meeting friends, having great time, hanging out, and so on...
- Some of my friends have really damaged themselves along the way, and I'm talking psychological/psychiatric issues that they still experience today. What is good for one could be poisonous for the other. It's difficult to have a frame of reference if everyone around is high.
- I eventually ended up with this: Don't put anything in your body that isn't grown naturally. Shrooms and weed are so much better... Almost if the nature is guiding us. There are subtle nuances. (Of course there are myriads of natural poisons that will kill or damage you.)
- Having a respectful approach to all mind-altering substances helps to stay out of trouble. Unfortunately, with our era of "playground Internet" it's so much difficult. (Where's entheogen.org?) All those substances are teachers.
It was 19 years ago that speed overuse contributed to my first lost tooth.
Four months ago I FINALLY was able to want/afford/get dental implant_S (plural, b/c I lost myself MORE teefs) — WOW — itself a psychological experience (sedation or not)!
In two months, I will be getting my fake teeth installed onto aforementioned implanted posts — I have cried uncontrollably about this, for years and presently, but just cannot begin to stress how much of a mental (and physical) accomplishment this will be.
----
I'm not here to harp and tell "nobody don't do nothin," but live your life in moderation AND BRUSH YOU TEETH!
The early decade or so of electronic music parties were truly magical. People were mostly on MDMA and/or LSD and did not consume much alcohol. Sadly, these days alcohol culture has taken over, and people often use cocaine or speed to remain energetic while drunk. It’s a different kind of vibe - more about escaping versus opening the mind as it is with MDMA or psychedelics.
There are still places where more conscious partying happens. These are typically psychedelic trance or deep techno festivals.
Alcohol truly is one of the worst drug we use - just look at Dr. David Nutt’s research [0]. I really wish young people clubbing these days gravitated towards less harmful drugs.
They eye opener for me was how "moderate" alcohol use (like 6 beers over the weekend or 1 beer every day) causes lasting effects. One of them is increasing cortisol levels throughout the week.
What would you expect weekly consumption of 6 tablets of MDMA or some other psychedelic drug to cause? Organ damage, cognitive decline, and anxiety are among the list.
MDMA, sure, would have severe consequences if consumed so much.
Psychedelics, such as mushrooms or LSD, would cause hardly any harm and simply would stop working due to tolerance build up, unless the user keeps doubling the dose every time.
6 days of LSD a week or even weekly can easily make you believe really weird things (often with a spiritual bend), though it depends on the dosage. I'm pro LSD but I've seen a ton of people change massively from overly frequent use.
I'm not personally defending alcohol, but I think the reason it works for so many people is as long as you drink moderately the effects aren't so psychologically divisive (it works about the same on everyone), the health effects aren't that severe, and tolerance to it doesn't quite work like it does with other drugs. Since so many people drink, it opens up the largest number social opportunities when compared to anything else.
Hate it all you want, but I don't think anything will ever replace it. All its serious competitors have been around for just as long. There must be some deeper biological reason for it to be favored so heavily. I really don't think it's just marketing and cultural norms.
Hard disagree with the effects of alcohol being universal. Some get energetic, some get tired, others get happy while others still get rowdy. I would say that the range of personalities hidden behind a few drinks are more varied than they are with say MDMA.
Likewise for comparing the availability of alcohol to other substances on a time line: MDMA only became widely known in the 70s! That's nothing compared to the millenia we've known how to make booze.
Shortly, I don't think either one of the arguments holds up to scrutiny.
> There must be some deeper biological reason for it to be favored so heavily.
Or perhaps the fact that it's legal and readily available in every grocery store, restaurant and entertainment venue? Unlike any other mind altering substance we use.
I’ll admit alcohol is perhaps less phenomenologically diverse than psychedelics, but I don’t know of anyone in the history of the world who took a decent dose of MDMA then went home and beat the daylights out of his wife and children.
Frequent occurrence on alcohol (and a quite distinct one than the “a few beers with my friends” that alcohol can also confer)
It's also the experience and ritual of drinking alcohol. It's something you do slowly and consistently over the course of a night which is practically an activity in of itself, similar to smoking tobacco.
I had several of those magical experiences on psychedelics at electronic music parties when I was younger, and was anti-alcohol for a long time. But due to drug prohibition, alcohol was always so much easier and far more available... eventually it sucked me in. Now I'm an alcoholic who can't imagine life without booze, even as it likely shortens my lifespan. I kinda wish that hadn't happened.
I’m sorry, but the article you linked is just sensational - its header claims alcohol is more harmful than heroin. Alcohol usage is extremely widespread, so of course its negative effects are more obvious in the population than other drugs. Personally, I’d rather be surrounded by a group of alcohol abusers than a group of psychedelics abusers.
"...when the overall dangers to the individual and society are considered" is the context for that, which you've removed. The article goes on to talk about why David Nutt thinks that, and given that he's spent his life researching various drugs in society I think his opinion is worth more than a cursory glance at the headline. I'm not sure whether I'd rather be around heroin addicts or alcholics (both of which I've known in the past) because they both have significant downsides, but it's worth noting that heroin isn't a psychedelic. I'd much rather be around people on psychedelics rather than the other two.
That context is irrelevant given the fact that alcohol usage is so widespread compared to heroin. Do you seriously claim that society would function better if every normal alcohol user converted to use heroin?
Furthermore, my point on psychedelics was about psychedelics, which was the context of the comment it answered, not heroin.
Alcohol kills, both with acute and chronic health problems. It also has long term cognitive and physical costs. For a significant proportion of its users it becomes habitual and for some, full-on addictive.
Alcohol is also associated with violence, both public and domestic.
Psychedelic use is none of those things. Psychedelics in general are far less likely to be addictive, use is not associated with violence. There are some health effects, LSD for example is a stimulant and vasoconstrictor, but in general they are not taken in large enough doses or often enough to cause harm.
I think your hunch as to who you would rather be around is a bit weird, frankly.
> Personally, I’d rather be surrounded by a group of alcohol abusers than a group of psychedelics abusers.
Can you elaborate a bit on this take? We've all seen how far people abusing alcohol can go. Where as the worst I see from psychedelics users is that they can struggle to talk about anything other than how've they've somehow figured out the universe and that everyone should take psychedelics.
Psychedelics, namely ones like LSD and magic mushrooms, are known to cause psychotic episodes which turn violent. Their prevalence despite the rarity of the drug strongly suggest a high risk of unpredictable violent action.
Anecdotally, people are much more likely to have violent episodes when using alcohol than psychedelics. I'd be surprised if relevant scientific studies didn't support these observations.
If you give addicts pure heroin a lot of them can function just fine. We should consider the negative consequences of prohibition rather than just the drugs themselves.
Opiates are generally easier on the body than people realize when distributed in a controlled setting. Alcohol does much more damage directly to the body. That's part of why opiates or opioids are still widely prescribed for pain in hospitals, and vodka shots aren't.
It's the addiction that's a bitch. Of course heroin street addicts end up in bad shape-- but a lot of that is from tangential effects, not directly from the drug itself.
The idea you need synthetic, mind-altering drugs to "be yourself" is tautologically absurd on its face, and this kind of discourse is pushed by manufacturers of those drugs.
I need mind altering substances to avoid anxiety and depression; I wholly reject the idea that without these substances, I am my "true self." My intrusive thoughts and self doubts aren't mystically good just because my mind produces them in the absence of substances; the feeling of self actualization I have if I use substances and am able to move past that headspace and reclaim my creativity (what I personally call "feeling like myself again") is no less real for having involved substances.
Aren't these selves both just... you though? I get that one state of mind is more desirable than the other, but denying that anxiety is part of your psychology makes it more seem like your "true self" is who you want to be than who you are. To be clear I'm not saying anxiety meds are bad or you're wrong for medicating or for wanting to not be racked by anxiety.
There are many states of mind that are unpleasant. Anxiety, grief, doubt, jealousy, anger, and so on; and many behaviors that we may engage in that we rationally realize we should not, various forms of self-sabotage, unhealthy habits, and so on.
I don't think saying because we don't like these things, these things aren't really your true self is helpful. They don't need to be part of us, but if we can't face the fact that they are, they will remain.
I don't think we disagree. It's appropriate to feel grief after experiencing loss, etc; I'm not advocating some kind of Brave New World approach of popping a soma any time you're in danger of feeling uncomfortable.
I do think it's a helpful framing to say, "my intrusive thoughts are not me; they're weather that passes through my mind, no more meaningful than the shapes I find in clouds or the static between television channels." Like, if I'm feeling anxious, I might get a vivid fantasy of bizarre self harm; that's just some weird shit that happened, it doesn't mean anything more than that I'm anxious and that my mind is capable of producing some whack imagery. Before I had this framing I'd have concerns like, is there some deep dark part of me that's trying to harm me? But no, it's just that I'm a very complex machine, my sensory apparatus produces all kinds of weird signals and some of them are just noise; they can be ignored, I don't have to identify with them, and doing so would be dangerous.
What I was getting at was more that sometimes people invoke a naturalism fallacy, sometimes in combination with a "just suck it up" sort of mentality, which I reject for a few reasons:
1. We don't have to accept things because they are natural; we don't have to accept cancer, or our inability to fly, or depression.
2. There is nothing morally superior about being miserable ("just sucking it up"). Improving your life is a small way of improving the world; I think that's a moral good.
3. Consciousness is a reflexive process between you and your environment. You take in input which changes your inner world and you produce output that changes your environment. Your thinking can't be separated cleanly from that environment. For example, the people you regularly turn to for advice provide feedback you use to regulate yourself; they are part of your process for thinking and coming to decisions. If you take in input in the form of a substance that changes your thinking - that can be dangerous, it needs to be done with care, but it isn't actually "unnatural" in the first place. If there's a failure mode of your consciousness and taking an antidepressant helps you to avoid it, that's just a feedback mechanism you've discovered & adopted from the outside world.
Its only true if we are not only sum of our experiences with bit of genetic modifiers sprinkled on.
Otherwise how the feeling of content on christmas eve with family is more true self than suicidal anxiety of existantial dredd You feel day after when everbody has gone to do their mostly pointless things.
I personalny am not sure which is more true - selecting any of those as nature seems like some some sort of rationalization to fit reality into ideollogy we just want, more or less subconsciously, to be true.
"content on christmas eve with family is more true self than suicidal anxiety of existantial dredd"
Both are true feelings, but my point was, that I don't think a general baseline anxiety is something that is part of ones personality. I feel limited in myself, when fear is dominating and free, if the fear is gone and I am no longer blocked to do the things I want.
I think you’ve tapped into something valuable here - really there are many yous; both in the moment and in the holistic.
We are both our best parts and our worse parts, and to take an analogy further if one felt their ‚best self‘ on MDMA‚ that wouldn’t meant to say that taking it every day would make them feel their ‚best self‘ in aggregate.
If a recovering smoker avoids cigarettes are they avoiding their ‚true self‘? I retort both are their true self, and anyway your true self no doubt changes.
'no man steps into the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man'
I didn't realize I had anxiety and Fibromyalgia until I took a little too much of cannabis bread. My thoughts weren't all over the place, I had better control of my coordination and oh how clear my thoughts were. Math concepts I had struggled with in school suddenly made sense. As the effects of the THC wore off, I noticed a familiar feeling of pain come over me body. Only this time, It came slowly, and its intensity increased as the effects of the THC wore off. Is this pain in my nerves? I was used to experiencing it as irritations, stress, and fatigue. I could make sense of it because I had time to think about it before getting overwhelmed by it. I was fascinated! I discovered the word Fibromyalgia after this.
The second time I ate the bread, I made sure I had no activities for the day, was alone at home, and observed my behavior prior to taking the cannabis. When it was time to eat, I got a timer and took note of when the effects kicked in, which parts of my body became relaxed first and how the general transition from stress, /micro pain/anxiety to peace, and clear thoughts happened. I loved the discovery I was making. After a couple of months I quit the cannabis and switched to meditation, yoga, ice baths, and CBT to deal with the anxiety. It has worked. These days I don't meditate or do yoga daily, but I have better control of my life, and very grateful for the experience that led me here.
Counterexample: I have a friend who was a very happy person and started taking ecstasy in early 2000s. At one of the parties he saw a young colleague die just next to him. Of course everybody interpreted it as an unfortunate coincidence ("if you're unlucky, you can die of aspirin, too").
Then, one day, he went to see his dentist who asked him if he wants to take nitrous oxide. My friend agreed but that day something strange started happening to him. When he was telling me it seemed like serious paranoia. He lost his job, he was seeing things that weren't there, day and night. It lasted more than two years and doctors weren't able to help him. He is more or less normal now but won't even touch anything intoxicating, not even alcohol.
Later I saw some articles about that and it doesn't seem so uncommon:
You'll get no argument from me that both ecstacy and nitrous oxide are incredibly dangerous. I don't do ecstacy and I'm not keen on being sedated with nitrous oxide. I wish things had been different for your friend. I think a recreational drug culture isn't well equipped to understand and respond to hazards like this; I wish we had something different, where use was more mindful and it wasn't driven underground, making it inaccessible to doctors and researchers.
I also used ecstasy to avoid my anxiety (in the early 2000’s mainly) - I’ve found more recently that therapy from a good professional is better for me.
> I wholly reject the idea that without these substances, I am my "true self."
Yes, scare quotes intentional. It seems to me more like the phrasing of "be yourself" and be your "true self" in this comment and parent is the issue. What if that "true vs false self" is an illusion anyway? You can still "be better", be what you want to be, be happier and more capable, be a better self, that you like more.
It doesn't require any claims that "this point on the graph is truly me, and that point is not". That statement might not just be false, but be actually meaningless. Drugs are mind-altering for sure, that's the point of them, but so is learning a new skill or reading a good book.
Good post. Are there any downsides? I use alcohol to excess, a habit I developed in the days when socialising was something I wanted/needed to do but needed help with it.
Let me be clear that I don't use ecstasy to regulate my mood (or, personally, at all) and that I'm not a doctor.
I use marijuana to break out of loops of anxiety and repetitive, intrusive thoughts (blessedly legal where I live), and there are some modest downsides, mostly that it's expensive and only works if used in moderation. It helps snap me out of anxiety attacks and shorten the duration of depressive episodes but it isn't magic, I still have to confront my issues and work towards making my life better.
Virtually everyone I know has struggled with anxiety and/or depression and has had success going to therapy and taking some sort of antidepressant. Many of them had to go through several therapists & medications until they found a therapist they meshed with and a prescription/dosage that worked for them; it's a difficult and frustrating process, but I've seen it really work for people in my life.
Like I said, I'm not a doctor, I can only give the most general advice, but it is my belief that if you want your life to be different, it's a real possibility, it's something worth working towards, and if you feel that you use alcohol in excess, it's worth considering whether a professional can help you to identify a different strategy/medication.
At the same thing I doubt this article is some output of "big MDMA".
I can definitely say the authors experience chimes with my own, talking to people openly at after parties sorted out a lot of things for me - with apologies to anyone that became my adhoc therapist at the time.
Of course there are downsides; one upside of feeling terrible on a Wednesday is the realisation that it was vecause of going out on a Friday.
What's worse is feeling terrible and it's during a time where you haven't been going out partying.
You also don't need a beer to celebrate with friends.
You also don't need a nice winter walk to find a deepened sense of feeling alive.
You don't need a nice house and car to feel like you are worth something.
The truth is, external things impact our lives. The substances consume, food we eat, landscapes we move through, people we talk to, objects we use, architecture we work and live in influences us more than we would like.
Nobody would say "It is sad that you need that glas of Prosecco to celebrate New Year's with your friends." Because strictly speaking you don't really need it — it is just nicer that way. (Edit: unless of course you are an alcoholic, which is a real thing)
This is the way that kind of party drug can work as well. You don't need it to be happy, but it is nicer that way.
"Nobody would say "It is sad that you need that glas of Prosecco to celebrate New Year's with your friends." Because strictly speaking you don't really need it "
Of course, some people feel that they do actually need it and that is the rub with expressing positives about drugs or other externalities. Some people become addicted and those addictions can have incredibly negative effects on the people around them.
That goes without speaking. Drugs are not without risk and they are tricky because even smart people might fall into the trap of tricking themselves till it is too late.
That being said the same is true of a lot of things as well. People can become addicted to social media, expressions of material wealth, porn, food, ... Literally everything that provides a dopamine boost in some way.
The question depending on the specific object of desire is always how much of the addiction is in the "substance" and how much in the mind of the addicted person.
“Nobody would say "It is sad that you need that glas of Prosecco to celebrate New Year's with your friends."”
There are actually quite a large number of people who would say exactly that. It’s a minority position, but there are still quite a few people in the US who are opposed to alcohol consumption and have exactly the same concerns about it as other drugs. (Often, but not always, based in religious convictions.)
I simplified reality for the sake of argument. It goes without saying that there are people who have religious or moralic concerns, there also people who have actual good reasons to avoid alcoholic drinks (e.g. if you or someone in your family had problems with alcohol in the past).
I think a realistic stance towards drugs like alcohol or MDMA demands that we do not ignore the problems these drugs cause, but also see with how many users they don't cause any problem at all.
The article doesn’t describe it that way. More like turning off parts if your brain and letting other parts come to the forefront. Thinking of your brain this way, that you have multiple zones I guess jostling for control is an interesting concept.
Personally I was too scared by the Leah Betts type thing (mentioned in the article) at the time to try E and I was had a perhaps irrational fear that drugs would affect academic performance and basically lower my IQ so I never did them.
Of course the main thing I should have been scared of is my first year of driving a car, statistically!
Mind altering drugs allows one to glimpse what kind of person one could be if they where e.g more empathetic or less anxious. It can help people better understand such feelings.
I can understand the “true self” narrative, when one loses their constant anxiety for on a trip for example, those feeling suddenly start to feel different in sober life, as if they are no longer a part of you but instead are with you. Hence why you discover your “true self”, who does not have such negative feelings.
The idea that you reject such powerful (and yes, dangerous) tools due to the societal stigma to "drugs" is sad and the reason research only now starts to pick up again, way too late.
It's absurd, especially in the US, how a crazy amount of people is put on anti-depressants for years instead.
Many people struggle with anxiety, depression, lack of energy or other, sometimes extremely harsh and severe, mental issues. To blanketly dismiss the problems people encounter and then to condemn the possibility of treatment or relief is callous and impulsive.
I’ve taken mdma at parties and concerts in the past. Without it, I had anxiety and am generally quiet and stiff, with it I’m out on the dance floor with everyone else having a good time.
yeah, that "I wanted to dance to the music" and "I felt connected to people" - uhhh, I feel that just by being in a dark room with music and dancing and other people enjoying it. That's just the club atmosphere. Takes a little time to get into it though.
In a broader sense, I think it's worth exploring the notion that there is such a thing as a true self that you're normally not able to access, that may be revealed through some process of therapy, insight, meditation ritual or drugs.
I'm not sure where it comes from, and there are some pretty concerning inconsistencies with the notion if you scrutinize it.
I don't think one needs drugs for that kind of exploration. It is relatively obvious, that me vs me armed with Wikipedia are quite different. There are many ways you can slice it.
It's more about being your best self. There is a range of "you"ness, many possible versions of you, angling for a particular one is just self improvement, even if done by artificial means.
A rather whimsical take on the scene which frustratingly skipped some of the best aspects
Freedom… depending on where you lived (Sydney in my case) you could party every hour Friday night until Monday morning, linking up clubs
Parking was easier, you could drive places without a permit
Anonymity… there was no social media and cameras were few and far between
Music… some of the sounds had never been heard before. Even in 2023 you can go into a wanker bar and hear stuff like Kruder and Dorfmeister or Dmitri from Paris playing overhead. Music sounds just stopped being made
Scale… Gatecrasher, Creamfields, Ibiza, Love Parade, Bush Doof, Raves … it is less these days or more atomised
1999-Millenium… just an amazing transition time that cannot be bottled
I'm very pro legalization, I think the government should have no say in what people do with their bodies, and I seek new experiences. That being said, by reading what the author said in this article I am so happy I have never done MDMA nor had I anything to do with the culture around it.
Conversations that seem profound, but aren't, making drugs part of your identity, thanks, not for me, and not for the type of people I want to be friends with.
I am happy the events lived through by the author are perceived as having been positive by her today, but if I would have had the same experiences in my youth I would definitely think I wasted my life.
Conversations you have in ecstasy often are very profound, you may open up in ways you would not normally. You feel understood, and you feel heightened empathy towards others.
You seem very judgemental.
Edit: I am rate-limited and cannot respond below, so I'll add here. Your idea that this is all necessarily a false experience is, to put it bluntly, incorrect. You seem to think that people aren't really listening to each other and aren't really understanding each other, but in many cases they really are.
I called you judgemental because you said you wouldn't want to be associated with that 'type of people', not because of your choice not to use a substance.
> Conversations you have in ecstasy often are very profound.
Often repeated for all kinds of drugs, MDMA, psychedelics, even marijuana users claim this. But in my experience conversations are universally banal and only seem profound.
> you may open up in ways you would not normally
To me, this sounds like a nightmare. The idea that something artificial could change me in any way. And the idea that people desire this is scary.
> You feel understood
Exactly, you feel understood without being understood.
> You seem very judgemental.
For exercising my right to not do something while recognizing the right of others to do it? Oh, the irony.
> To me, this sounds like a nightmare. The idea that something artificial could change me in any way. And the idea that people desire this is scary.
For many, this is the whole point of taking psychedelics - to find self-improvement through these altered states. Science seem to confirm this works. [0] Why does it feel scary to you?
> For exercising my right to not do something while recognizing the right of others to do it? Oh, the irony.
"not for the type of people I want to be friends with."
That's the judgemental piece right there, just so you know for the future. Not that you don't want to do something, that you're writing swathes of people off entirely based on your own misconceptions about what they do want to do.
> Exactly, you feel understood without being understood.
And this is where you're making incorrect assumptions based on your own biases.
I highly recommend you don't touch anything more mind altering than a cup of tea, given your phobia of altered states.
I have no interest in socializing with religious people, Javascript programmers, gym people, vegans, gamers, modern artists, car enthusiasts, cowboys, cryptocurrency enthusiasts, etc. That doesn't mean that what these people do is wrong, it simply means we have no shared interests or values, and my time is better spent with other people. I pass no judgement on what they are doing, I chose to live my life differently and with other people.
> your own misconceptions about what they do want to do. [...] And this is where you're making incorrect assumptions based on your own biases.
My experiences with drug enthusiasts were a total waste of my time, again and again. It's fascinating that drug enthusiasts are trying to convince me otherwise. This is exactly one of the reasons why I am have no interest in their company.
> I have no interest in socializing with ... it simply means we have no shared interests or values
That's a bizarre set of prejudices - prejudgements of vastly varied sets of individuals - based on single characteristics.
> I pass no judgement
But you have, and you've told me what my experiences are based on your preconceptions.
> My experiences with drug enthusiasts were a total waste of my time, again and again. It's fascinating that drug enthusiasts are trying to convince me otherwise.
I'm not, you're repeatedly misinterpreting what's been said.
This -
"And this is where you're making incorrect assumptions based on your own biases."
Was in response to your assertion that "you feel understood without being understood", not an attempt to convince you that you would benefit from anyone's company. You're making assertions about other people's experiences, and then judging them on that, from a position of ignorance.
I suspect I'll leave the conversation here as conversing with someone who is deliberately misconstruing what's said isn't worth it.
> "It started with that rush known as “coming up.” Different people experienced it in different ways, but for me it was an overwhelming feeling of warmth and a glowing sensation that flooded my body. My friends had all taken it before me and told me what to expect; they never left me until I had come up. And then, as well as having an urge to dance to the music that inhabited me, I felt a connectedness to people that I had never felt before. I felt a surge of empathy for my fellow clubbers; it was heavenly. The rest of the night was filled with what I can only describe as ineffable joy."
I've had MDMA like this. No regrets.
Years later I found better - a 1 hr long full body orgasms - thank god it was alone in kutis seperated by forest - i sounded like meg ryan in "Sleepless in Seattle" for about an hr or two each day - but where did I find this? In myself doing nothing other than scanning my body in meditation and letting the breath calm me.
Externally: it was in a monastery meditating with a group of celibate monks in the middle of the forest - and that is the foot hills - not yet "jhana".
This is properly why people are celibate - they are not idiots. I found the cause for that. It wasn't in self denial or asceticism but actually - to reach something deeper.
There are of course people celibate for the wrong reasons. BUt I got an idea of why. Also in finding this pleasure its based directly on the lack of interest one finds in sensory pleasure which ironically frees energy that produces pleasure in ones senses and body - I see also how the ability to sort of "feel out" or feel oneself into this is a great service to society as the act of practicing this is finding the internal harmony in oneself and that manifests as external harmony.
This is why people were properly monks and nuns - but also the source of the institutions wisdom and power and later domination by the types that just want power and so on.
I don't believe "most" is true. There is an enormous social stigma around them and people who do/did use them usually try to conceal the fact. It's not just about what others think, this doesn't matter much, but you can easily lose your job and this threatens your very existence. You can probably get away with "I did it many years ago and now I'm clean and I condemn it" but some people will always be suspicious anyway.
Maybe 30 years ago. But there has been a US president who admitted to cocaine use and still got elected in a landslide. Of course it depends where and in what milieu but in the US mainstream I don’t think the stigma to some past drug use is that extreme. Especially if you’re clean now.
And in fact, many do. There's also scores of people who enjoyed drugs without issues. You probably won't hear anything from any of them, given the social stigma.
It's funny, no one says the same thing about alcohol, yet it can get very costly very quickly.
I never bought MDMA or any other drug in nightclubs, but I've seen people dealing, and I think the price was €10 a pill. In the same places at the time, a random shitty drink was like €9 and a beer (330 mL) around 8. People would clearly drink more than a single drink a night.
MDMA doesn't work the second time you take it the same day, you won't feel practically any effect at all. You have to wait some time. The next day it might work a little but if you try to do it 3 days in a row that's not going to work.
It's also dangerous to do it that often. Minimum time between doses should be 3 months to be as safe as possible. People who drop more than once don't understand how it works and are just setting themselves up for medical emergencies.
I heard of pills for that low, but never seen them unless it was a bigger order.
The pills coming out of the Netherlands these days are absurdly potent - tests have found ones up to 350mg.
There's a lot of mythology out there about if different production methods change the "effect", but lab tests show no difference on a chemical level.
The problem today is that whenever there's a good stamp going around, there's always a knockoff that's just cheap speed and caffeine or some other shite.
this article is quixotic at best.
the author states the common clubber exchange was: "name/location/drug?" then
waxes nostalgic about "open conversations" on pills, citing a 2 line dialogue with someone about sexuality and masculinity?
red flags:
-how were they having these intimate conversations in clubs blasting massive attack?
-yes i do believe MDMA can be used to facilitate open communication, but also think that this superpower would be better served to create/restore lasting relationships vs single-dose convos in clubs
-none of the potential downsides to her drug use were listed. iirc, back then mdma was frequently cut with meth. the author doesn't mention safety around testing your drugs or long-term mental / physical issues stemming from large-dose/chronic MDMA usage.
not to diminish their nostalgia and their decisions -- go do drugs. legalize .*
underground clubs I attended all played music very loudly, and few had "chillout" rooms where you could actually talk. even in the bathrooms you had to scream...
I agree with your linked assessment of MDMA-driven experience. However, her plan to retire with other singletons seems sensible. Why does it further convince you of your assessment of MDMA experiences?
You can build things in life, or you can consume them. You can build a business, a family, a career in sports or arts, whatever it is that interests you and you work towards that goal.
Everybody does a little bit of both, some people do one more preponderantly than the other. My experience is that drug users do less building and more consuming. Carpe diem philosophy and all that. This second article seems to reinforce that.
Nothing wrong with this way of life, if it brings fulfilment to the author, more power to her, but I seek other kind of people.
Would be good to see some research exploring the relationship between recreational drug use and neurological conditions such as dementia, anxiety, depression, etc.
Hindsight is 20/20 vision and all that but I'd definitely choose a healthy mind over a bunch of brief euphoric experiences.
this is the promise of large population longitudinal studies, because they can properly deal with the endogeneity problem. (are people taking drugs because their life is not-ok, or are drugs making them not-ok, etc.)
It’s interesting how negative all the people who seem not to have done MDMA in this thread are… and how positive the article and those who have experienced it are.
You could rewrite this comment as "I think you are wrong here, I felt there are a range of experiences from both sides of the discussion." The HN guidelines are quite clear on this...
While it's true the war on drugs has gone too far, saying illegal drugs are "not so bad for your health" is a bit much.
The most disturbing is reading people who says psilo is better than antidepressants to treat depression, because it's FDA approved in some situation under supervision.
It's funny how many experts you can find about this subject online.
I don't feel anything from MDMA. Not even the first time. Even proven good sources. Other people using the same batch get great results. Increased the dosage, still nothing.
I believe it sometimes doesn't work the first time. Also, if you're on some types of medication for depression or anxiety or are chemically depressed, it may not work at all. I don't have sources for this, just anecdotal, so do your own research.
i tried nearly drug under the sun back in the day, played in bands, wrote the best songs during drug comedowns and partied like an animal until suddenly growing up around 30 and getting my bachelor's in physics, a family and starting a business. i have no regrets. mdma, lsd, ketamine and nitrous were my favourites. i still smoke weed now and then on weekends, never drink because i don't really enjoy it. i'm from the netherlands in case that matters.
A few minutes in and already commentors talk about "drugs" as if MDMA is in the same category as Heroin, while casually going out for a few beers later.
Imagine inhaling carcinogenic smoke against your will because someone lights a cigarette next to your face, but then remembering it's all fine because the legal/illegal framework has got you covered.
MDMA made a fundamental change to the way I perceive music. For me it was a really positive experience. Responsible drug use by adults should not be a crime.
They have a good job with a firm funded by Phillip Morris and others lobbying for more drug use via articles like this one. It’s like going to school to get a PhD in Egyptology and then taking a job as a professor of Egyptology. Good gig for the training if you can get it.
More people should do that. This will help create reasonable drug laws better than the laws we currently have in most countries, too many of which are based on ideology, fiction and religious moral attitudes.
Because unless you are an author who gets famous and writes about using drugs all the time and practically nothing else[1] no one except the police care. Everyone over 30 knows that every professional workplace has habitual coke users, that a large majority of artists/musicians/art teachers/bar tenders/chefs are currently or were previously users of weed or LSD.
MDMA will probably be regularly used for psycholytic therapy within the next decade and likely see legalization in the same cities that're legalizing psychedelics right now. It has a lot of potential for treating PTSD, trauma and anxiety, and most of the danger is around impure pressings, exhaustion, water toxicity, etc.
Personally, it helped me a lot with learning how to open up to and trust people. I used to think I was an introvert, but I really just had severe social anxiety from a difficult upbringing.
Indeed, arguably the biggest risk from taking ecstasy is because it is illegal and therefore has a higher potential to be cut with substances that are much more likely to cause users harm.
"Minor drug related crimes, like own use of illegal drugs, provides only a daily fine but means that the person ends up in the Police records."
---
"In 2004, Sweden had 84 people per 100,000 in either prison or remand prison. This is less than the average for the OECD (132 people per 100,000) and much less than the number for the United States (725 per 100,000)."
> I'd say that whatever they're doing, it seems to be fairly effective.
It's a police state with an ongoing alcohol prohibition, tremendous amount of road blocks in the capital and night club bouncers having to have basic police training. Compared to Estonia where there's almost no cops visible, no no-go zones and very little crime - Sweden isn't doing that well.
The site it's published on, Filter Magazine, describes itself [1]:
> Our mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights.
Sponsors include [2] Juul Labs, Phillip Morris International, The American Vaping Association and Knowledge Action Change (see below).
The author of the article herself is a grantee of Knowledge Action Change [3]. KAC describes itself [4] as an advocacy organization for "tobacco harm reduction" which basically means promoting "alternative" tobacco products such as vapes. [5]
None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased.
I think it makes a difference that the author is not some random person who reflects about her drug use growing up and comes to the conclusion that it actually had lasting positive effects - but someone who actively lobbies for drug use as part of her job.
[1] https://filtermag.org/about-filter/amp/
[2] https://filtermag.org/about-the-influence-foundation/amp/
[3] https://filtermag.org/author/kiran-sidhu/amp/
[4] https://kachange.eu/#about-us
[5] https://thrsp.net/introduction-to-the-thrsp/