Ecstasy use 'increases mental disorders'

Comon' kiddies, nuff opinions, more links.

 

[Ns1]

<< Comon' kiddies, nuff opinions, more links. >>



Alright maybe one more

It's hard to find unbiased links. It'd either be pro or against, hardly anything in the middle


Wait, what exactly do you want links on?

 

[Marshy]

Here the abstract from a very highly respectable journal, basically saying some bad news for women and some good news if you give up taking ecstasy.

Effects of dose, sex, and long-term abstention from use on toxic effects of MDMA (ecstasy) on brain serotonin neurons.

Lancet 2001 Dec 1;358(9296):1864-9


BACKGROUND: 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy) is a popular recreational drug that has been shown to damage brain serotonin neurons in high doses. However, effects of moderate MDMA use on serotonin neurons have not been studied, and sex differences and the long-term effects of MDMA use on serotonin neurons have not been identified. We investigated the effects of moderate and heavy MDMA use, sex differences, and long-term effects of MDMA use on serotonin neurons in different brain regions. METHODS: By means of flyers posted in "rave" venues in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, we recruited 15 moderate MDMA users, 23 heavy MDMA users, 16 ex-MDMA users who had stopped using MDMA for more than 1 year, and 15 controls who claimed never to have used MDMA. We studied the effects of MDMA on brain serotonin neurons using 123iodine-2beta-carbomethoxy-3beta-(4-iodophenyl) tropane ([123I]beta-CIT)-a radioligand that binds with high affinity to serotonin transporters. Density of binding (expressed as a ratio of region-of-interest binding over binding in the cerebellum) was calculated by single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT). FINDINGS: We saw significant effects of group and group by sex (p=0.041 and p=0.022, respectively) on overall [123I]beta-CIT binding ratios. In heavy MDMA users, significant decreases in overall binding ratios were seen in women (p<0.01) but not men (p=0.587). In female ex-MDMA users, overall densities of serotonin transporters were significantly higher than in heavy MDMA users (p=0.004), but not higher than in controls (p=0.524). INTERPRETATION: Our results indicate that heavy use of MDMA is associated with neurotoxic effects on serotonin neurons, that women might be more susceptible than men, and that MDMA-induced neurotoxic changes in several brain regions of female ex-MDMA users are reversible.

 

[phatcow]

<< methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy) is a popular recreational drug that has been shown to damage brain serotonin neurons in high doses. However, effects of moderate MDMA use on serotonin neurons have not been studied >>



what is high doses and what is moderate usage?

WHat if you roll on a pill once a month....


imho its all about moderation... dont take it to extremes and youll be alright..

 

[jobberd]

<< lol! You remind me of those deniers who believe they drive better after they've had a few drinks. >>

How do the two relate to each other? It's true, the person is at fault and not the drug. Do you blame a rape victim because she wears a short skirt? Yes, the skirt probaly upped the chances that the girl had of getting raped, but it is still ultimately and totally the rapist's for committing the atrocity.

<< I've experimented with virtually every drug out there, but it doesn't take a drug-user to see that tens of thousands of people who 'thought' they could 'handle' their drugs responsibly end-up with a host of consequences they never bargained for. >>

tens of thousands out of tens of millions...

<< lol! You're trying to bulllsh-t the wrong person. When you get to be my age, there are ONLY two types of 'drug' users: those who had enough sense to quit while they were ahead, and those who didn't have enough sense to quit while they were ahead. That's it.

Of all the friends and acquaintences I came to know during my 'experimental' years, representing all parts of the socioeconomic spectrum, from the sons of laborers to the sons of wealthy physicians or business owners, from high school drop-outs to those whose IQ and academic scores put them in the top 5% percent nationally, NONE continue to be "responsible" users.

They all fit within the two categories mentioned above: they either quit while they were ahead, or they didn't and suffered the consequences, the latter meaning one or more of the following: addiction, trips to the hospital from overdose, death, losing scholarships, losing multiple jobs, being kicked out of college, incarceration due to a range of offenses from drunk driving accidents to possession or intent to distribute, breaking and entering, larceny, fraud, aggravated assault, negligent homicide, all directly related to this fantasy that there were "responsible" drug users out there, and they fancied themselves as being among them. >>

So you're basing the average user's situation based on your own personal experiences? I can do that too. NONE of my friends has gotten into serious trouble because of drugs yet. That doesn't mean that there aren't drug abusers/addicts. It doesn't matter if you've had more experience with these people then I have, because your general experience is still ver limited in comparison to the entire situation

 

[Huz]

There's so many arguments going on in this thread it's futile to respond to any of them in particular because they've all been lost in the shuffle. What I do want to say is for those of you who align yourselves with the status quo, think about why you think the way you do. Every so often in this thread I'll start to read what looks to be a good argument against drug use only to have some complete and utter BS leak out mid-way...then I move on to the next mesage.

After experimenting with drugs for the past 3 years I've come to 2 conclucions: moderation is key -and- there is no free lunch (thank you Milton Freeman). If you do too much E, you'll end up chronically depressed. It's proven. If you smoke a lot of weed every day, you're going to be a lazy sack of sh## and have bad lungs. The list goes on. Anyone who's being true to themselves won't argue that excessive drug use will F' you up. Moderation, grasshoppa, moderation.

IMO do whatever the F' you want, but once it starts to interfere with me, we have problems. Drink yourself silly at the local pub, but for godsake get a F'ing cab, don't drive. Take as much E and acid as you want but have fun when you're a grandparent and you're an Alzheimer's Veggie.

I did a lot of drugs and I knew the risk going in, and knew the risk about the long term effects. I accepted those risks, had a helluva good time, and moved on with my life. If you're one of the unfortunate lot who get sucked into some state of addiction, sucks to be you, but you should have educated yourself beforehand. And me, well if I get Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or whatever, hey - I did the crime now I gots to do the time. There is no free lunch.

Used to be an awesome link to facts about most illicit drugs...hope it still works. Check it out.

 

[jobberd]

<< Used to be an awesome link to facts about most illicit drugs...hope it still works. Check it out. >>

While it does have plenty of useful facts and archives of trips, it carries plenty of articles which are just as biased FOR drugs as NIDA is AGAINST them

 

[Ns1]

<< While it does have plenty of useful facts and archives of trips, it carries plenty of articles which are just as biased FOR drugs as NIDA is AGAINST them >>




Yes, erowid is very biased, but pretty good source if you weed out all the crap

 

[jobberd]

<< Yes, erowid is very biased, but pretty good source if you weed out all the crap >>

Interesting choice of metaphors