A Texan who built an empire of ecstasy(texasmonthly.com)
texasmonthly.com
A Texan who built an empire of ecstasy
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/ecstasy-starck-club-drugs-eighties-dallas/
173 comments
https://archive.is/e5cPl
I sold "ecstasy" for about a year in the early-90s, around UC Davis, Stockton, Modesto, down to Stanislaus State. It helped me pay for college.
I first heard about "ecstasy" at a rave in Sacramento. It wasn't called "ecstasy" then, it was just called "pills". My friend and I were trying to sell weed at the rave and no one wanted it; kids were making fun of us, telling us to go back to Woodstock. So we found a source of pills in San Francisco - a former cop that reminded me of Fred Schneider from The B-52s, and we went back to another rave in Sacramento. The two things I remember from the whole experience are:
1. People REALLY liked this stuff. I'd never seen people so happy to buy drugs. We usually sold out within a few minutes of showing up, just hanging out in the parking lot.
2. Unlike other popular drugs (weed and coke), it seemed almost impossible to get caught. I had one interaction with the police - a kid at Sac State got sick and needed medical attention; the cops eventually questioned him and he ratted on us. A cop later rolled up, questioned us, then asked if we would get him a date with one of our friends, some pretty girl we knew from the rave scene. He basically said he'd look the other way if she went on a date with him. The girl agreed and that was it. So yeah, I know things changed, but at the time, cops just weren't taking "pills" seriously. (BTW, the girl did go on a date with the cop; she said he was a tool. He showed up to the date with his gun holster under his jacket, and flashed his badge to the waitress when she asked about ID to buy booze from the bar. There was no second date.)
I first heard about "ecstasy" at a rave in Sacramento. It wasn't called "ecstasy" then, it was just called "pills". My friend and I were trying to sell weed at the rave and no one wanted it; kids were making fun of us, telling us to go back to Woodstock. So we found a source of pills in San Francisco - a former cop that reminded me of Fred Schneider from The B-52s, and we went back to another rave in Sacramento. The two things I remember from the whole experience are:
1. People REALLY liked this stuff. I'd never seen people so happy to buy drugs. We usually sold out within a few minutes of showing up, just hanging out in the parking lot.
2. Unlike other popular drugs (weed and coke), it seemed almost impossible to get caught. I had one interaction with the police - a kid at Sac State got sick and needed medical attention; the cops eventually questioned him and he ratted on us. A cop later rolled up, questioned us, then asked if we would get him a date with one of our friends, some pretty girl we knew from the rave scene. He basically said he'd look the other way if she went on a date with him. The girl agreed and that was it. So yeah, I know things changed, but at the time, cops just weren't taking "pills" seriously. (BTW, the girl did go on a date with the cop; she said he was a tool. He showed up to the date with his gun holster under his jacket, and flashed his badge to the waitress when she asked about ID to buy booze from the bar. There was no second date.)
[deleted]
If you are interested in the topic, you can check the autobiography of the biggest manufacturer of LSD in history:
"The Rose Of Paracelsus" by William Leonard Pickard [1].
It is both poetic and fascinating. It's not an easy read but I recommend it.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28930020-the-rose-of-par...
It is both poetic and fascinating. It's not an easy read but I recommend it.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28930020-the-rose-of-par...
There is the story in Dr. James Ketchum‘s memoir of a barrel containing 40lbs of LSD turning up in his offices. He worked on the Edgewood arsenal as part of the US military. This was enough LSD to make several hundred million people trip and worth nearly $1 billion at street value. Are you suggesting that Pickard manufactured more than that?
Easily. DEA alleged he made 2lbs every 5 weeks, from the late 80's to late 90's. They also seized 'up to' 80lbs.
Where’s the demand for all that LSD. I can’t imagine more than 30 million people ever doing it and probably less than 2 million habitual users in the US.
The production of LSD was highly concentrated, the DEA claimed that after Pickford's arrest, availability dropped by 99.5%, it looks quite a while to recover. His supply basically was the entirety of demand at the time.
Street prices went from $1/dose to well over $10. Basically overnight.
you can increase the amount you take over time. and obviously lots of people take it more than one time in their life without being habitual.
But maybe the guy was a bit weird and produced more than was actually needed.
But maybe the guy was a bit weird and produced more than was actually needed.
Jam band tours
Im not sure there are habitual users, in the way there are habitual users of tobacco or alcohol
In Australia during university around the second the summer of love period we ended up doing acid at least once a week (mostly weekends) for near two years.
Probably about half time in the city at clubs and parties, and half time out in the forests and remote beaches.
Strawberry double dips were prevalent, a few other designs, microdots etc.
I'm pretty sure it gave me a perspective still today, that I would not otherwise have.
I don't think it caused any "damage". I still graduated with one of the hardest 4 year degrees and went on to use the degree in a career. I don't have any regrets about it all and the events that unfolded.
There were, however, many, many notable incidents and events, most of them more than little bit funny, even today.
I don't really remember expressly how, why it ended, it was like organic decay. I think it just ran it's course with availability of LSD, us having the time and places to do it, and eventually I think life just took over.
But, definitely, there were some regular repeat customers.
Probably about half time in the city at clubs and parties, and half time out in the forests and remote beaches.
Strawberry double dips were prevalent, a few other designs, microdots etc.
I'm pretty sure it gave me a perspective still today, that I would not otherwise have.
I don't think it caused any "damage". I still graduated with one of the hardest 4 year degrees and went on to use the degree in a career. I don't have any regrets about it all and the events that unfolded.
There were, however, many, many notable incidents and events, most of them more than little bit funny, even today.
I don't really remember expressly how, why it ended, it was like organic decay. I think it just ran it's course with availability of LSD, us having the time and places to do it, and eventually I think life just took over.
But, definitely, there were some regular repeat customers.
[deleted]
The author's Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard
Not entirely on topic but a relevant warning. Extasy is used nowadays as a rape drug. Be careful. I have had extasy three times in my life, none of them consensual -- every single time it was slipped into my drink. I described the symptoms to my psychiatrist and she said that it was extasy for sure. I am a middle aged man and not incredibly attractive. God knows what is happening to young sexy people.
So if you are having a drink somewhere and you suddenly unexpectedly get this really happy, warm and cozy feeling, as if everything is alright with the world, there is love everywhere and you just have to hug and kiss somebody, anybody .... well do not hug or kiss anybody. You may have just been drugged.
There is a very troubling lore about MDMA, in that it apparently it is not such a bad drug, etc. I don't know about this ... I do know that a lot of MDMA deaths happened at the extasy fueled raves that were popular in the 90s and the early 2000s. They say those deaths were from other causes ... I do not know if this is true, but I have a feeling that this mantra of "MDMA is not that bad it is all about love, etc. " has been taken up by would-be-rapists to convince themselves that what they are doing is not that bad. That MDMA is not really a rape drug like Rohypnol, so there is nothing wrong in slipping one into a person's drink.
Well they are wrong. It is a serious crime and it is attempted rape if intent is established.
I confronted one of the guys that slipped me MDMA. It is not difficult to guess who did it, they usually make sure they are close to you when you are having those "I need to hug and kiss someone, anyone" feelings. He essentially admitted it without saying it outright and started laughing. Thought it was a cute thing, like something out of a romantic comedy.
I wish I had proof to send all those f*ckers to jail but of course when you are happy on MDMA you do not think to save the evidence for the police. But next time I will. I have thought about this enough that next time I will recognize the symptoms and do what needs to be done regardless of how happy I am feeling.
If anyone cares, none of these events resulted in sexual assault, I am a very careful person and I do not easily give in to strange feelings.
So if you are having a drink somewhere and you suddenly unexpectedly get this really happy, warm and cozy feeling, as if everything is alright with the world, there is love everywhere and you just have to hug and kiss somebody, anybody .... well do not hug or kiss anybody. You may have just been drugged.
There is a very troubling lore about MDMA, in that it apparently it is not such a bad drug, etc. I don't know about this ... I do know that a lot of MDMA deaths happened at the extasy fueled raves that were popular in the 90s and the early 2000s. They say those deaths were from other causes ... I do not know if this is true, but I have a feeling that this mantra of "MDMA is not that bad it is all about love, etc. " has been taken up by would-be-rapists to convince themselves that what they are doing is not that bad. That MDMA is not really a rape drug like Rohypnol, so there is nothing wrong in slipping one into a person's drink.
Well they are wrong. It is a serious crime and it is attempted rape if intent is established.
I confronted one of the guys that slipped me MDMA. It is not difficult to guess who did it, they usually make sure they are close to you when you are having those "I need to hug and kiss someone, anyone" feelings. He essentially admitted it without saying it outright and started laughing. Thought it was a cute thing, like something out of a romantic comedy.
I wish I had proof to send all those f*ckers to jail but of course when you are happy on MDMA you do not think to save the evidence for the police. But next time I will. I have thought about this enough that next time I will recognize the symptoms and do what needs to be done regardless of how happy I am feeling.
If anyone cares, none of these events resulted in sexual assault, I am a very careful person and I do not easily give in to strange feelings.
Giving someone any kind of drug, even alcohol, against their consent is god freaking awful.
> at the extasy fueled raves that were popular in the 90s and the early 2000s. They say those deaths were from other causes
If you are at an illegal rave, maybe some hot squatted warehouse with no AC, you dance all night with no break, do ALOT and don't drink any water there is a good chance you collapse.
Don't do that.
> at the extasy fueled raves that were popular in the 90s and the early 2000s. They say those deaths were from other causes
If you are at an illegal rave, maybe some hot squatted warehouse with no AC, you dance all night with no break, do ALOT and don't drink any water there is a good chance you collapse.
Don't do that.
Re: deaths, a lot of what is sold as "MDMA" is not MDMA at all, but MDA, meth, all sorts of wacky and poorly understood 2C-* analogs or, increasingly and incredibly dangerously, fentanyl.
Also, ecstasy is typically taken communally, in which case it's not a very effective rape drug since it decreases sex drive and causes temporary erectile dysfunction in many men.
Also, ecstasy is typically taken communally, in which case it's not a very effective rape drug since it decreases sex drive and causes temporary erectile dysfunction in many men.
The erectile dysfunction it causes has no correlation with decreased sex drive. Just about everyone I know who’s taken the substance has reported their sex drive is through the roof.
So you have repressed feelings towards men that are only able to come out when taking XTC?
XTC doesn't make you want to kiss anybody, you might lower your standards, but won't make you attracted to men if you aren't already before taking it.
XTC doesn't make you want to kiss anybody, you might lower your standards, but won't make you attracted to men if you aren't already before taking it.
> So you have repressed feelings towards men
What makes you think that?
What makes you think that?
Wrong you disgusting pervert. You do not know me you have no right or ability to do psycho analysis to me.
Even if what you say is true and if ecstasy only “lowers your standards” then, by definition if someone makes you take it without knowing it is still an attempted rape. So you are defending rape, you disgusting pervert.
Even if what you say is true and if ecstasy only “lowers your standards” then, by definition if someone makes you take it without knowing it is still an attempted rape. So you are defending rape, you disgusting pervert.
"At this point, he’d been using heroin every day for many years. " ...
"As the DEA puts it in a fact sheet it circulates for parents and educators, “It is ironic that a drug that is taken to increase pleasure may cause damage that reduces a person’s ability to feel pleasure.”
Maybe years of pill popping had done just that to Jenkins. "
... eyes rolling
Maybe years of pill popping had done just that to Jenkins. "
... eyes rolling
MDMA is so fun. It's something I would love to do once a year or so for the rest of my life. Unfortunately it seems that people can't really grow up and do drugs responsibly. People either hard pivot away from drugs early on because they were abusing them, or they go down a path where drugs define them. The only way to keep getting good drugs that I know of is to keep in touch with friends on the latter path, but I don't really want to associate much with them.
Same with weed, it seems most people I know either quit smoking completely, or do nothing but smoke weed. I'm in my mid 30s.
Where the responsible casual adult drug users at???
Same with weed, it seems most people I know either quit smoking completely, or do nothing but smoke weed. I'm in my mid 30s.
Where the responsible casual adult drug users at???
We exist! I took MDMA for the first time in my late 30s.
What a fun, and joyful substance.
I took it as an adult: while partying, with my wife, at festivals.
Responsibly (test it first!). Not too much. Just a couple times a year.
I love it and has made my life better. But I'm glad I waited to "do drugs" until I was older and my brain and personality were a bit more settled.
My favorite thing about MDMA is that, while the experiences you have while on it are of course an "altered state of mind," those experiences are still your experiences.
I did, in fact, experience seeing my wife dancing freely and openly under scintillating lights and thinking: "wow."
I did in fact experience seeing two of my best friends talking with each other in a quiet corner of the festival and realizing "I love these people. They are special."
And because those experiences are real, they unlock a "register" which is now available even when stone cold sober.
A few weeks ago I was totally sober, in the middle of the day, when I saw two friends of mine (brothers) walking together having a discussion. And in my "MDMA" register I thought: "how special brotherhood is."
I'm certain not everyone who takes MDMA has experiences this good. I've been in spectacular settings and my age has afforded me the luxury of taking it with a good mindset.
But it's pretty fucking cool.
What a fun, and joyful substance.
I took it as an adult: while partying, with my wife, at festivals.
Responsibly (test it first!). Not too much. Just a couple times a year.
I love it and has made my life better. But I'm glad I waited to "do drugs" until I was older and my brain and personality were a bit more settled.
My favorite thing about MDMA is that, while the experiences you have while on it are of course an "altered state of mind," those experiences are still your experiences.
I did, in fact, experience seeing my wife dancing freely and openly under scintillating lights and thinking: "wow."
I did in fact experience seeing two of my best friends talking with each other in a quiet corner of the festival and realizing "I love these people. They are special."
And because those experiences are real, they unlock a "register" which is now available even when stone cold sober.
A few weeks ago I was totally sober, in the middle of the day, when I saw two friends of mine (brothers) walking together having a discussion. And in my "MDMA" register I thought: "how special brotherhood is."
I'm certain not everyone who takes MDMA has experiences this good. I've been in spectacular settings and my age has afforded me the luxury of taking it with a good mindset.
But it's pretty fucking cool.
> Responsibly (test it first!). Not too much. Just a couple times a year.
MDMA fans will argue this on the internet, but MDMA use (even without polydrug abuse) is associated with cognitive deficits in memory and learning. There’s a lot of experimental evidence showing it has damaging effects on neurons.
The damage done by a drug like this wouldn’t necessarily be obvious or even at the level to pass the threshold of significance in a scientific study after one or a couple doses. However, there isn’t much debate even among drug users that taking MDMA frequently produces some profoundly debilitating effects on long-term users.
I think everyone should be aware that it’s very likely that each MDMA dose is incurring some level of damage that is either long-term or potentially permanent. A couple sessions at moderate doses might not produce strictly significant effects but it’s amazing how quickly people go from “a couple times per year on special occasions” to having 20-30 exposures over a decade or two, which starts putting them beyond even the inclusion criteria for most light use studies that were performed.
EDIT: Also note that using DIY testing supplies on your pills is great practice and necessary in the age of fentanyl, but it’s not definitive. The only real way to test is to ship some of your pills off to one of the groups that tests for free and wait months for the results. Pills can contain multiple substances. There is a problem right now where one of the “research chemical” manufacturers has produced a large batch of a compound that is normally used for lesioning (damaging) serotonin neurons in lab studies. It has recreational effects, though, so it’s being sold as a drug. There’s concern that vendors will start mixing it into pressed pills to cut them with an active substance.
MDMA fans will argue this on the internet, but MDMA use (even without polydrug abuse) is associated with cognitive deficits in memory and learning. There’s a lot of experimental evidence showing it has damaging effects on neurons.
The damage done by a drug like this wouldn’t necessarily be obvious or even at the level to pass the threshold of significance in a scientific study after one or a couple doses. However, there isn’t much debate even among drug users that taking MDMA frequently produces some profoundly debilitating effects on long-term users.
I think everyone should be aware that it’s very likely that each MDMA dose is incurring some level of damage that is either long-term or potentially permanent. A couple sessions at moderate doses might not produce strictly significant effects but it’s amazing how quickly people go from “a couple times per year on special occasions” to having 20-30 exposures over a decade or two, which starts putting them beyond even the inclusion criteria for most light use studies that were performed.
EDIT: Also note that using DIY testing supplies on your pills is great practice and necessary in the age of fentanyl, but it’s not definitive. The only real way to test is to ship some of your pills off to one of the groups that tests for free and wait months for the results. Pills can contain multiple substances. There is a problem right now where one of the “research chemical” manufacturers has produced a large batch of a compound that is normally used for lesioning (damaging) serotonin neurons in lab studies. It has recreational effects, though, so it’s being sold as a drug. There’s concern that vendors will start mixing it into pressed pills to cut them with an active substance.
Meanwhile, taking a couple of beers daily for decades doesn't make anyone raise a brow, you can even find people that says it's good for your heart, according to some doubtful study from the 90's.
In some of those studies you might be referring (e.g. DOI: 10.2174/1874473711306010008) say that MDMA users score worse in memory, but better in depression and anxiety, and equal on cognitive or mood. Of course what makes the headlines is that MDMA is bad for memory, no mention to the positive effects. And of course, the narrative would be that if you take MDMA a couple of times per year, soon you won't even remember your own name.
In some of those studies you might be referring (e.g. DOI: 10.2174/1874473711306010008) say that MDMA users score worse in memory, but better in depression and anxiety, and equal on cognitive or mood. Of course what makes the headlines is that MDMA is bad for memory, no mention to the positive effects. And of course, the narrative would be that if you take MDMA a couple of times per year, soon you won't even remember your own name.
> Meanwhile, taking a couple of beers daily for decades doesn't make anyone raise a brow
There are a lot of people bought into the idea that ~1 drink a day is beneficial due to the flawed studies like you pointed out.
But most people who keep up with things know better. My primary care doctor gives a reminder that drinking is not healthy despite what some old headlines claimed (even though I rarely drink).
Even the podcasters seem to have caught on, with many emphasizing that no amount of alcohol is beneficial and even 1 drink per night consumed consistently over time has damaging effects.
There is a lot of backlash when podcasters get too close to these subjects. I remember when Huberman touched on the topic of marijuana and Reddit was up in arms. Huberman isn’t great at scientific accuracy (to say the least) but he was directionally correct. Many people didn’t want to hear it, though.
People like to think their drug of choice is the safe one. They cherry pick a few studies that agree and choose to dismiss anything that doesn’t.
There are a lot of people bought into the idea that ~1 drink a day is beneficial due to the flawed studies like you pointed out.
But most people who keep up with things know better. My primary care doctor gives a reminder that drinking is not healthy despite what some old headlines claimed (even though I rarely drink).
Even the podcasters seem to have caught on, with many emphasizing that no amount of alcohol is beneficial and even 1 drink per night consumed consistently over time has damaging effects.
There is a lot of backlash when podcasters get too close to these subjects. I remember when Huberman touched on the topic of marijuana and Reddit was up in arms. Huberman isn’t great at scientific accuracy (to say the least) but he was directionally correct. Many people didn’t want to hear it, though.
People like to think their drug of choice is the safe one. They cherry pick a few studies that agree and choose to dismiss anything that doesn’t.
Sure alcohol is not healthy.
Unfortunately, neither is oxygen.
Now you will say that we need oxygen and can survive without alcohol. But then again, we do not have a Faustian bargain of choosing to abstain of all the fun things in life and living for 200 years.
The elephant in the room is that no matter how healthy a life style you live, we presently have no way to reverse a rapid decline in quality of life around 85-90 culminating in complete collapse ages 100-110.
And those are absolute best case scenarios!
My illusion of being in control of your destiny was shuttered when Jack LaLanne - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne died at 95.
You can have a great quality of life until mid 80s by leading a moderately healthy lifestyle provided you do not get cancer.
After that we are a loss on how to prolong our lives.
I would almost welcome if Larry Ellison would prove us wrong in 10-15 years at least there would be theoretical hope. We'll see about Peter Thiel as well, but I will not be alive to see his experiments.
Unfortunately, neither is oxygen.
Now you will say that we need oxygen and can survive without alcohol. But then again, we do not have a Faustian bargain of choosing to abstain of all the fun things in life and living for 200 years.
The elephant in the room is that no matter how healthy a life style you live, we presently have no way to reverse a rapid decline in quality of life around 85-90 culminating in complete collapse ages 100-110.
And those are absolute best case scenarios!
My illusion of being in control of your destiny was shuttered when Jack LaLanne - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne died at 95.
You can have a great quality of life until mid 80s by leading a moderately healthy lifestyle provided you do not get cancer.
After that we are a loss on how to prolong our lives.
I would almost welcome if Larry Ellison would prove us wrong in 10-15 years at least there would be theoretical hope. We'll see about Peter Thiel as well, but I will not be alive to see his experiments.
There’s a huge difference between living to a healthy 85 and having major cognitive / physical issues at 65 and symptoms well before then. Yes you’re guaranteed to have significant physical decline by 85, but the baseline isn’t static you can still be more physically capable than an un athletic 30 year old.
So we’re talking roughly an extra 30%!
So we’re talking roughly an extra 30%!
it is concerning how many people do not understand the VAST difference in quality of life and physical/mental ability over the age of 50 between someone who takes decent care of themselves and someone who doesn't. So many times I've heard people, in the face of making healthier choices, respond with "why would I want to live longer anyways, I'm going to be old and decrepit!". Very sad perspective.
tw - drugs, addiction, overdose, severe illness, death
tldr - I was this dude until I got to see how things turned out for someone with the same attitude roughly 30 years older than me
I was one of those "Here for a good time, not a long time" people in my twenties. Booze, drugs, parties, shows, "Why would I wanna skip all of this just to go to the gym and pretend to run?" After a few years of partying like that you assume the hangover is the worst thing that'll happen and you'll bounce back after two days. But the universe had a gift for me: my uncle, who was about 35 years older than me, had the same attitude. I watched his addiction progress from "he just likes to have fun" to "sure he drinks too much but underneath it he's a good guy" to a point where his family was making him sleep in the garage. The whole time this was happening he was "Here for a good time, not a long time".
It took him over a year to die, once they determined that the liver and kidney damage was beyond mitigation or repair. I got to take care of him, as I lived with my mom (his sister) and his nuclear family had kicked him out after he pulled a gun on his daughter for coming home pregnant. In that year, he lost motor control, couldn't walk and could barely talk. Once I watched him try to tip his head back to drink from a glass of water and his head just kept going backward until he fell over. Only one of his three kids bothered to visit him. It was the one he pointed a gun at. He forgot her name.
Did you know that organ failure has a distinct smell to it? It's ammonia and engine coolant, saccharine sweet but with just a hint of rot. Our whole house smelled like that for the last few months. Those miasma months were spent helping him to the bathroom and explaining to him that he's at Vicki's house, Vicki is his sister and no he can't take his truck and go to the bar because he doesn't have a truck anymore and his license is revoked. He spent the last week of his life in someone else's bed, howling in pain and terror.
I, otoh, got my shit right. I'm not entirely sober but neither do I party like I used to. The bargain I made with myself is that I can do drinks with friends a maximum of twice a month, and I can't ever do drinks alone. I've been able to stick by that for several years now, even after the overdose death of my brother (who was another one who never saw the sense in anything other than maximum immediate fun). I take two fifteen-twenty minute workout breaks per day, one for weights and one for cardio. I've lost 25% of my body mass, I can bench press my dad and I'm actually having a much better time than when I was having a good time all the time. He was in his fifties when he died. I'm 40 now, and while he had already started his decline at 40 I'm stronger and more capable than ever. And I don't even have to tell myself "no" very often. Usually it's just "That's enough for now".
Maybe one day I'll be old and decrepit, but I won't be middle-aged, decrepit and hated by everyone I know. To me that's such a good deal I can't imagine why anyone would turn it down.
I was one of those "Here for a good time, not a long time" people in my twenties. Booze, drugs, parties, shows, "Why would I wanna skip all of this just to go to the gym and pretend to run?" After a few years of partying like that you assume the hangover is the worst thing that'll happen and you'll bounce back after two days. But the universe had a gift for me: my uncle, who was about 35 years older than me, had the same attitude. I watched his addiction progress from "he just likes to have fun" to "sure he drinks too much but underneath it he's a good guy" to a point where his family was making him sleep in the garage. The whole time this was happening he was "Here for a good time, not a long time".
It took him over a year to die, once they determined that the liver and kidney damage was beyond mitigation or repair. I got to take care of him, as I lived with my mom (his sister) and his nuclear family had kicked him out after he pulled a gun on his daughter for coming home pregnant. In that year, he lost motor control, couldn't walk and could barely talk. Once I watched him try to tip his head back to drink from a glass of water and his head just kept going backward until he fell over. Only one of his three kids bothered to visit him. It was the one he pointed a gun at. He forgot her name.
Did you know that organ failure has a distinct smell to it? It's ammonia and engine coolant, saccharine sweet but with just a hint of rot. Our whole house smelled like that for the last few months. Those miasma months were spent helping him to the bathroom and explaining to him that he's at Vicki's house, Vicki is his sister and no he can't take his truck and go to the bar because he doesn't have a truck anymore and his license is revoked. He spent the last week of his life in someone else's bed, howling in pain and terror.
I, otoh, got my shit right. I'm not entirely sober but neither do I party like I used to. The bargain I made with myself is that I can do drinks with friends a maximum of twice a month, and I can't ever do drinks alone. I've been able to stick by that for several years now, even after the overdose death of my brother (who was another one who never saw the sense in anything other than maximum immediate fun). I take two fifteen-twenty minute workout breaks per day, one for weights and one for cardio. I've lost 25% of my body mass, I can bench press my dad and I'm actually having a much better time than when I was having a good time all the time. He was in his fifties when he died. I'm 40 now, and while he had already started his decline at 40 I'm stronger and more capable than ever. And I don't even have to tell myself "no" very often. Usually it's just "That's enough for now".
Maybe one day I'll be old and decrepit, but I won't be middle-aged, decrepit and hated by everyone I know. To me that's such a good deal I can't imagine why anyone would turn it down.
wow what a powerful story - thanks so much for sharing. I'm glad you have been able to turn something horrible into a motivator for yourself. May your story do the same for others so they don't have to rely on dealing with such heartbreaking circumstances. RIP to your uncle.
>My illusion of being in control of your destiny was shuttered when Jack LaLanne - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne died at 95.
Can we deep dive into that statement? To me, at a glance, LaLanne's life looks like one that began out of control, then he took control of it and through doing more or less what everyone recommends (high protein, high fiber diet low in sugars and carbs with a bunch of exercise every day) he got exactly what one would expect (a life well past the mean life expectancy and with a relatively high quality of life even into his 90s, even being able to do his normal workout routine before he died). Unless you took him literally when he said "I can never die" that feels like an overwhelming confirmation that diet and exercise are key parts of a long, healthy and happy life.
Can we deep dive into that statement? To me, at a glance, LaLanne's life looks like one that began out of control, then he took control of it and through doing more or less what everyone recommends (high protein, high fiber diet low in sugars and carbs with a bunch of exercise every day) he got exactly what one would expect (a life well past the mean life expectancy and with a relatively high quality of life even into his 90s, even being able to do his normal workout routine before he died). Unless you took him literally when he said "I can never die" that feels like an overwhelming confirmation that diet and exercise are key parts of a long, healthy and happy life.
I personally do not find the idea of endless life in this world appealing at all. I don't even get the desire to live to 100+, nevermind 200. I tend to think that the 'longevity desire' is prompted within oneself when one is not living according to whatever-it-is one thinks one should really do. The rat race is compelling sure, one needs money etc, but that is not the entire purpose of life. Perhaps some seeking/introspection is needed to make life meaningful.
Happy people are generally OK with going anytime, grateful for every moment and experience and only want to have closest ones taken care of. Unhappy ones, especially when its something deep and hard or impossible to tackle, want more and more, like they could somehow fix things in future or cover them up enough to finally arrive at that point they'll never arrive anyway.
Project it to some extremes and its easy to see why sociopathic dictators and billionaires (which most if not all of them are) would love to see significant life prolongation, of course only theirs. One of the biggest threats to near future mankind as it is IMHO, imagine 300 years of rule of pos like puttin' for example.
Project it to some extremes and its easy to see why sociopathic dictators and billionaires (which most if not all of them are) would love to see significant life prolongation, of course only theirs. One of the biggest threats to near future mankind as it is IMHO, imagine 300 years of rule of pos like puttin' for example.
no X, no beer - you get to live to be 100 :) except you know, boring as shit :)
There is also evidence linking some common pharmaceuticals to long term deficits in memory and cognition.
Diphenhydramine (Benadryl/OTC Sleep Aids) use is associated with an increased risk of dementia [1], while benzodiazepines like Xanax and Ativan are strongly associated with long term cognitive deficits [2]. Taking many drugs is a cost-benefit analysis, and it's important to be informed about the possible consequences before diving in.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/common-anticholinergic-d...
[2] https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/33/7/901/47349...
Diphenhydramine (Benadryl/OTC Sleep Aids) use is associated with an increased risk of dementia [1], while benzodiazepines like Xanax and Ativan are strongly associated with long term cognitive deficits [2]. Taking many drugs is a cost-benefit analysis, and it's important to be informed about the possible consequences before diving in.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/common-anticholinergic-d...
[2] https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/33/7/901/47349...
> Meanwhile, taking a couple of beers daily for decades doesn't make anyone raise a brow
That totally raises eyebrows I'd say. I like beer as much as the next person, but nobody I know pretends that daily beers would be fine, healthy, or even acceptable. The only person that I know of who likely drinks ~daily self-identifies as an alcoholic.
That totally raises eyebrows I'd say. I like beer as much as the next person, but nobody I know pretends that daily beers would be fine, healthy, or even acceptable. The only person that I know of who likely drinks ~daily self-identifies as an alcoholic.
I avoid alcohol like the plague. I'm spaniard, and I can assure you that there are a lot of people that takes one glass of wine with each meal (something that qualifies you as an alcoholic in medical terms). In the summer, beer is king, and I would say half the population takes at least a bottle (33 cl / 12 fl.oz.) daily, as a substitute for water (luckily, zero-alcohol beer is also on the rise). Wouldn't be unheard that you drink wine or beer at lunch and then go to work until 6pm.
Alcohol consumption is totally normalized here. In fact, the only socially valid reason to not drink at a party or celebration is that you are driving later. That's my experience at least.
Alcohol consumption is totally normalized here. In fact, the only socially valid reason to not drink at a party or celebration is that you are driving later. That's my experience at least.
True that this surely is very much culture dependent.
I'm also from Europe but a bit higher up, and grew up in a party drinking culture. It wasn't an issue if you were drunk twice a week as long as those were the designated party days, Friday and Saturday, and Sunday was reserved for the unavoidable hangover.
Alcohol with food wasn't too common so drinking alone on other days heavily hinted towards losing control.
I'm also from Europe but a bit higher up, and grew up in a party drinking culture. It wasn't an issue if you were drunk twice a week as long as those were the designated party days, Friday and Saturday, and Sunday was reserved for the unavoidable hangover.
Alcohol with food wasn't too common so drinking alone on other days heavily hinted towards losing control.
>Alcohol consumption is totally normalized here. In fact, the only socially valid reason to not drink at a party or celebration is that you are driving later. That's my experience at least.
It's a bit sad, but it's a reason I pick the car sometimes. To have an excuse for not drinking.
It's a bit sad, but it's a reason I pick the car sometimes. To have an excuse for not drinking.
I think this may be generational. I'm GenX and growing up it was no big deal for my parent's generation (yes, the boomers) to have a drink a night. Even among people of my generation now it wouldn't be uncommon. Probably less than before, but I don't think anybody would think twice about a beer or a drink per day would be any big deal.
Raises my eye brow, even before watching Huberman. A week of drinking everyday makes you feel shit.
I would love to see some studies on this because everything I've seen is either rats that were exposed to truly insane doses (10X more than a human would take) or among long term, heavy users (weekly).
I don't necessarily doubt that there's some level of brain damage going on, but the extent is poorly understood and likely over exaggerated.
I don't necessarily doubt that there's some level of brain damage going on, but the extent is poorly understood and likely over exaggerated.
> because everything I've seen is either rats that were exposed to truly insane doses (10X more than a human would take) or among long term, heavy users (weekly).
These studies get emphasized by MDMA proponents because they find them easiest to argue against.
Many of the arguments are based on flawed logic, like taking rat mg/kg numbers and translating directly to human mg/kg numbers. This isn't how drugs are scaled to animal doses (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4804402/ if you want to understand) so it leads to a lot of claims that studies are giving insane doses when they may not be.
Honestly this game isn't my favorite because someone always comes along to point out why various studies aren't 100% perfect in humans with a large sample size and then tries to suggest that therefore it should all be ignored. If they can't attack the study, they attack the motivations of the authors or insert claims like how the sample group may have been taking other drugs. If that fails, they try to claim that the drug users may have had those deficits to begin with, which led to the drug use. It goes on and on.
Here's one random study where abstinent users had decreased memory scores. The decrease scaled relative to how much of the drug they recalled using: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9855498/ (Opponents will point out one of the authors is hated in the drug community due to past controversy and therefore they won't trust the study)
Here's another one where ex-users showed verbal memory deficits, among other things: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16510479/
It's honestly not hard to find studies like this, but what you won't find is big placebo-controlled gold standard trials with enough dosing to achieve statistical significance. That's because it's not ethical to do so, and therefore it won't happen.
These studies get emphasized by MDMA proponents because they find them easiest to argue against.
Many of the arguments are based on flawed logic, like taking rat mg/kg numbers and translating directly to human mg/kg numbers. This isn't how drugs are scaled to animal doses (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4804402/ if you want to understand) so it leads to a lot of claims that studies are giving insane doses when they may not be.
Honestly this game isn't my favorite because someone always comes along to point out why various studies aren't 100% perfect in humans with a large sample size and then tries to suggest that therefore it should all be ignored. If they can't attack the study, they attack the motivations of the authors or insert claims like how the sample group may have been taking other drugs. If that fails, they try to claim that the drug users may have had those deficits to begin with, which led to the drug use. It goes on and on.
Here's one random study where abstinent users had decreased memory scores. The decrease scaled relative to how much of the drug they recalled using: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9855498/ (Opponents will point out one of the authors is hated in the drug community due to past controversy and therefore they won't trust the study)
Here's another one where ex-users showed verbal memory deficits, among other things: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16510479/
It's honestly not hard to find studies like this, but what you won't find is big placebo-controlled gold standard trials with enough dosing to achieve statistical significance. That's because it's not ethical to do so, and therefore it won't happen.
I appreciate you dropping those.
In https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9855498/ the average dose was a staggering 440mg a month (multiple rolls a month) with a sample size of 24 people. This is definitely falls under "heavy" usage and even then it's hard to disambiguate correlation vs causation in such a small, underpowered study.
The average participant in your second study, https://sci-hub.ru/10.1177/0269881106059486, had again taken an average of 800 lifetime doses. These are insane amounts and do not remotely reflect the average user.
Here's a meta study for example that found no long term impact among more realistic users - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3053129. I haven't looked into this in a long time, so I ran a deep research query, and for typical usage (<50 lifetime doses, months between sessions) there seems to be very little evidence of structural or functional harm.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_6817cd9ce85081918c7d55fa9a28c654
In https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9855498/ the average dose was a staggering 440mg a month (multiple rolls a month) with a sample size of 24 people. This is definitely falls under "heavy" usage and even then it's hard to disambiguate correlation vs causation in such a small, underpowered study.
The average participant in your second study, https://sci-hub.ru/10.1177/0269881106059486, had again taken an average of 800 lifetime doses. These are insane amounts and do not remotely reflect the average user.
Here's a meta study for example that found no long term impact among more realistic users - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3053129. I haven't looked into this in a long time, so I ran a deep research query, and for typical usage (<50 lifetime doses, months between sessions) there seems to be very little evidence of structural or functional harm.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_6817cd9ce85081918c7d55fa9a28c654
> why various studies aren't 100% perfect
You have to agree the presented studies are very far from 100% perfect, you just chose to believe them. That is your choice but you shouldn't force this choice on others.
> what you won't find is big placebo-controlled gold standard trials with enough dosing to achieve statistical significance
Would they be really needed if MDMA really was the killer drug you are making it to be? Because for alcohol (or heroin) abuse it's not that hard to get statistical significance from observation studies on population - a combination of large number of people abusing alcohol and its large negative effects. Where are similar studies for MDMA proving your claims?
You have to agree the presented studies are very far from 100% perfect, you just chose to believe them. That is your choice but you shouldn't force this choice on others.
> what you won't find is big placebo-controlled gold standard trials with enough dosing to achieve statistical significance
Would they be really needed if MDMA really was the killer drug you are making it to be? Because for alcohol (or heroin) abuse it's not that hard to get statistical significance from observation studies on population - a combination of large number of people abusing alcohol and its large negative effects. Where are similar studies for MDMA proving your claims?
[deleted]
Same, any existing study I've read follows abuse-level or Chronic usage. Would love to know affects of recreational usage.
I'd imagine such a study would be quite difficult because so many things could affect your results: sleep, diet, age, alcohol, covid, etc.
I know nothing about this but I feel like the technology exists to scan your brain before and after to see neuron damage. I just want to know if a single use causes permanent brain damage and to what extent.
I'd imagine such a study would be quite difficult because so many things could affect your results: sleep, diet, age, alcohol, covid, etc.
I know nothing about this but I feel like the technology exists to scan your brain before and after to see neuron damage. I just want to know if a single use causes permanent brain damage and to what extent.
Like those old "mobile phones are bad for you" studies, where they effectively cooked rats in microwave ovens and found out that wasn't healthy for them.
dosed reasonably (~125 mg with no redoses), ideally at lower ambient temperatures, and ideally with an SSRI at the end of perceptible effects to stop MDMA to keep circulating through the neuron and causing oxidative stress, you will quite literally see 0 axonal damage. maybe some neurotransmitter depletion, but this is only temporary.
PCA yes that is concerning but I would be extremely surprised if it ended up in the MDMA supply chain. MDMA is made cheaply at quantities several magnitudes higher than research chemicals. it's much more likely PCA will be sold as a cut for others RC's -- especially as a part of those dreadful cathinone soups labelled "3-mmc" these days
PCA yes that is concerning but I would be extremely surprised if it ended up in the MDMA supply chain. MDMA is made cheaply at quantities several magnitudes higher than research chemicals. it's much more likely PCA will be sold as a cut for others RC's -- especially as a part of those dreadful cathinone soups labelled "3-mmc" these days
> you will quite literally see 0 axonal damage.
There is absolutely no scientific backing to support such an absolute claim.
The animal studies using SSRIs worked because they dosed the SSRIs before the MDMA. By occupying the serotonin transporter the MDMA is prevented from entering the neurons, which prevents the damage.
Taking an SSRI afterward might do something for the very tail end of the dose, but that's after most of the action and therefore most of the damage. You can't get all of the recreational effects, then block the transporter afterward and expect the same protection.
SSRIs are also potentially dangerous with MDMA due to the possibility of serotonin syndrome.
There have been numerous recipes floated around in drug circles for combating the neurotoxicity but they’re extrapolations and hypotheses, not firmly supported concepts.
There is absolutely no scientific backing to support such an absolute claim.
The animal studies using SSRIs worked because they dosed the SSRIs before the MDMA. By occupying the serotonin transporter the MDMA is prevented from entering the neurons, which prevents the damage.
Taking an SSRI afterward might do something for the very tail end of the dose, but that's after most of the action and therefore most of the damage. You can't get all of the recreational effects, then block the transporter afterward and expect the same protection.
SSRIs are also potentially dangerous with MDMA due to the possibility of serotonin syndrome.
There have been numerous recipes floated around in drug circles for combating the neurotoxicity but they’re extrapolations and hypotheses, not firmly supported concepts.
What is the best resource for "safer" MDMA consumption? (Like, which SSRI to take and at what dosage).
Also, isn't mixing SSRIs and MDMA a huge no-no, given the potential for a serotonin storm/serotonin syndrome?
Also, isn't mixing SSRIs and MDMA a huge no-no, given the potential for a serotonin storm/serotonin syndrome?
You should avoid SSRI:s adjacent to MDMA use. The hypothesis is that by blocking the serotonin transporter you'd avoid dopamine getting reabsorbed into serotonin vesicles, but there is very little evidence that this would work and there are obvious risks.
SSRI:s will give you a strong tolerance against serotonergic drugs and it will take a long time to lower that tolerance, months, maybe a year or two. As far as I know it hasn't been studied scientifically but I've seen people get quite uncomfortable experiences from MDMA and 5-HT2a-psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, those) after being off SSRI medication for several months, that I amateurishly attribute in part to downregulation of serotonin sensitivity.
A more acute risk is MAO inhibitors, which are sometimes prescribed as antidepressives. You're more likely to suffer acute damage or die from a combination of MDMA and an MAOI than with an SSRI, though neither is a good idea.
The Bluelight forums are a decent source of harm reduction advice, https://www.bluelight.org/community/forums/. Be aware that some participants in the discussions have problems with risky or abusive use, or give bad advice. Stickied guides tend to be of high quality, however.
SSRI:s will give you a strong tolerance against serotonergic drugs and it will take a long time to lower that tolerance, months, maybe a year or two. As far as I know it hasn't been studied scientifically but I've seen people get quite uncomfortable experiences from MDMA and 5-HT2a-psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, those) after being off SSRI medication for several months, that I amateurishly attribute in part to downregulation of serotonin sensitivity.
A more acute risk is MAO inhibitors, which are sometimes prescribed as antidepressives. You're more likely to suffer acute damage or die from a combination of MDMA and an MAOI than with an SSRI, though neither is a good idea.
The Bluelight forums are a decent source of harm reduction advice, https://www.bluelight.org/community/forums/. Be aware that some participants in the discussions have problems with risky or abusive use, or give bad advice. Stickied guides tend to be of high quality, however.
Nope. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16472832/
2mg/kg dose, so ~160mg for an adult human. More importantly rat to human is usually a 6ish HED factor so that’d be <30mg. In reality metabolism, brain volume, etc all matter but this is not an even remotely safe drug.
Also taking SSRIs near MDMA administration is one of the worst pieces of what is doubtless intended as harm reduction advice I’ve ever seen. You don’t hand people a recipe for serotonin syndrome because of a small scale rat test or two.
2mg/kg dose, so ~160mg for an adult human. More importantly rat to human is usually a 6ish HED factor so that’d be <30mg. In reality metabolism, brain volume, etc all matter but this is not an even remotely safe drug.
Also taking SSRIs near MDMA administration is one of the worst pieces of what is doubtless intended as harm reduction advice I’ve ever seen. You don’t hand people a recipe for serotonin syndrome because of a small scale rat test or two.
> Also taking SSRIs near MDMA administration is one of the worst pieces of what is doubtless intended as harm reduction advice I’ve ever seen. You don’t hand people a recipe for serotonin syndrome because of a small scale rat test or two.
you have a deep understanding of releaser pharmacology if you state this. don't take it from me though--matthew baggott, one of the leading researchers studying enactogen pharmacology recommends doing this exact thing
you have a deep understanding of releaser pharmacology if you state this. don't take it from me though--matthew baggott, one of the leading researchers studying enactogen pharmacology recommends doing this exact thing
Okay, I looked at Baggott's work a little more. Here are my primary concerns:
1. He's talking his book to a certain extent. This is his life's work and he runs a company in this space (though a B corp) so he will have a bias here. That's fine overall, as it may help balance people unfairly biased against psychedelics, but it's worth remembering. I'm not saying this to impugn his character so much as to point out everyone has biases, and someone in his position likely has strong ones, even if partially-founded.
2. He believes an SSRI alleviates negative symptoms, but we don't know it does more than alleviate the comedown. It appears his endpoint was cognitive performance post-use, not long-term damage that may appear once off the SSRI.
3. This doesn't touch the dopaminergic risks of amphetamines, which are substantial.
A few exploratory bits of research into one potential way to alleviate the acute effects post-administration don't translate to an established method to use this in a remotely-safe fashion.
1. He's talking his book to a certain extent. This is his life's work and he runs a company in this space (though a B corp) so he will have a bias here. That's fine overall, as it may help balance people unfairly biased against psychedelics, but it's worth remembering. I'm not saying this to impugn his character so much as to point out everyone has biases, and someone in his position likely has strong ones, even if partially-founded.
2. He believes an SSRI alleviates negative symptoms, but we don't know it does more than alleviate the comedown. It appears his endpoint was cognitive performance post-use, not long-term damage that may appear once off the SSRI.
3. This doesn't touch the dopaminergic risks of amphetamines, which are substantial.
A few exploratory bits of research into one potential way to alleviate the acute effects post-administration don't translate to an established method to use this in a remotely-safe fashion.
Likely all amphetamines are neurotoxic the same way MDMA is, but we still use them for many things, including adhd. As a wise man once said, the dose makes the poison.
And as we know alcohol is carcinogenic and there is no known safe dose, but people still drink.
And as we know alcohol is carcinogenic and there is no known safe dose, but people still drink.
One of the main hypotheses is that concurrent release of neurotransmitters can cause dopamine to be reabsorbed into serotonin vesicles where the 'wrong' MAO enzyme breaks it down, releasing hydrogen peroxide.
Another hypothesis is that the human serotonin systems, specifically the prefrontal cortex, are relatively young and not evolved to take a beating, unlike the 'fight-and-flight'-related dopamine systems.
One indication that this might be the case is differences between people that use amphetamine regularly through nasal or oral routes compared to people using MDMA in a similar manner, where the latter group typically suffers more obvious neuronal damage faster. Amphetamine needs to be taken at very high doses to affect the serotonin transporter, so you'd typically see this in users mainlining lots of it.
As far as I know you don't see the same mental and neuronal risk profile with e.g. 6-APB and similar benzofurans that David Nichols lab produced in the nineties, as with MDMA. They are also not as subjectively rewarding and 'fun' as MDMA, indicating that the dopamine release plays an important part in this regard.
'The dose makes the poison' is usually credited to Paracelsus, late 1400s, early 1500s. Whether he should be considered wise is a matter of debate, Francis Bacon disagreed and argued against Paracelsus and the rosicrucians that did consider him to be.
Edit: Should probably add that methamphetamine is a much more potent serotonergic agent than amphetamine, and in some societies 'amphetamine' or 'amphetamines' tend to actually mean meth because that's what's available to them.
Another hypothesis is that the human serotonin systems, specifically the prefrontal cortex, are relatively young and not evolved to take a beating, unlike the 'fight-and-flight'-related dopamine systems.
One indication that this might be the case is differences between people that use amphetamine regularly through nasal or oral routes compared to people using MDMA in a similar manner, where the latter group typically suffers more obvious neuronal damage faster. Amphetamine needs to be taken at very high doses to affect the serotonin transporter, so you'd typically see this in users mainlining lots of it.
As far as I know you don't see the same mental and neuronal risk profile with e.g. 6-APB and similar benzofurans that David Nichols lab produced in the nineties, as with MDMA. They are also not as subjectively rewarding and 'fun' as MDMA, indicating that the dopamine release plays an important part in this regard.
'The dose makes the poison' is usually credited to Paracelsus, late 1400s, early 1500s. Whether he should be considered wise is a matter of debate, Francis Bacon disagreed and argued against Paracelsus and the rosicrucians that did consider him to be.
Edit: Should probably add that methamphetamine is a much more potent serotonergic agent than amphetamine, and in some societies 'amphetamine' or 'amphetamines' tend to actually mean meth because that's what's available to them.
There are a lot of possible mechanisms:
- mitichondrial inhibition
- hyperthermia
- excitotoxicity for DA at least
- hyperthermia speeds up redox cycling of dopamine quinones
- more quinones due to all your dopamine unprotected by vesicles
- metabolic impairment means harder to regenerate NADPH/make glutathione
- probably others I can’t remember at the moment.
You may notice many of these “synergize” in a way that’s particularly bad for the user.
It’s really not worth touching for anyone outside a clinical setting.
- mitichondrial inhibition
- hyperthermia
- excitotoxicity for DA at least
- hyperthermia speeds up redox cycling of dopamine quinones
- more quinones due to all your dopamine unprotected by vesicles
- metabolic impairment means harder to regenerate NADPH/make glutathione
- probably others I can’t remember at the moment.
You may notice many of these “synergize” in a way that’s particularly bad for the user.
It’s really not worth touching for anyone outside a clinical setting.
Someone else said that all amphetamines are likely to be neurotoxic the same way MDMA is. I responded that they don't have to be.
Why did you take this as an invitation to do a purely theoretical exercise in listing possible mechanisms for neurotoxicity? At the very least you ought to have anchored your reasoning in actual risky MDMA use, what people actually do, instead of just ranting out words that could scare a layperson. I.e. behaviours that are common, like combining MDMA with alcohol, or dopaminergic psychedelics like LSD and 2C-B, or forgetting to drink water, or whatever that isn't pseudo-academic stuff like 'sped up redox cycling of dopamine quinones'.
I also think you should have taken the time to show that you have an understanding of why millions of people disagree with you. In my opinion it would also be prudent to compare the risks you see with other neuronal risks, like living in an environment with ICE exhausts or having kids and suffering sleep deprivation for years on end or just plain old poverty. The latter is shown to, on average, have detrimental effects on the brain that can be clearly visible in medical examinations, unlike sporadic, responsible use of MDMA.
Why did you take this as an invitation to do a purely theoretical exercise in listing possible mechanisms for neurotoxicity? At the very least you ought to have anchored your reasoning in actual risky MDMA use, what people actually do, instead of just ranting out words that could scare a layperson. I.e. behaviours that are common, like combining MDMA with alcohol, or dopaminergic psychedelics like LSD and 2C-B, or forgetting to drink water, or whatever that isn't pseudo-academic stuff like 'sped up redox cycling of dopamine quinones'.
I also think you should have taken the time to show that you have an understanding of why millions of people disagree with you. In my opinion it would also be prudent to compare the risks you see with other neuronal risks, like living in an environment with ICE exhausts or having kids and suffering sleep deprivation for years on end or just plain old poverty. The latter is shown to, on average, have detrimental effects on the brain that can be clearly visible in medical examinations, unlike sporadic, responsible use of MDMA.
This is a weirdly defensive answer. I didn't attack you personally, I brought up well-founded risks.
Your suggestions, while interesting, don't remove these risks. Yes, certain types of abuse make it worse: dosing higher, polydrug abuse, hot environments, and dehydration are all ways to damage your brain further. However, use of MDMA in an ideal sense probably still causes some level of damage.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16472832/
2mg/kg dose, so ~160mg for an adult human. More importantly rat to human is usually a 6ish HED factor so that’d be <30mg. In reality metabolism, brain volume, etc all matter but this is not an even remotely safe drug.
This isn't a "purely theoretical exercise", most of those are established mechanisms of amphetamine toxicity. This isn't "listing possible mechanisms", this is sharing salient info of risks of which possible abusers (given the nature of the thread and discussion so far) should be aware.
I'm sure as heck not "ranting out behaviors that would scare a layperson". Most of what I listed is pretty comprehensible with a grasp of high school chem and bio. Most of the information for this is freely available online. The information we have should scare a layman out of use, and probably someone with a greater background, too.
Whatabout-ing with sleep deprivation or similar doesn't make sense to me either. Did I say that was good or healthy? Bad things stack. Your body doesn't keep a record where it says "you've accumulated 10% damage from an un-fun cause like exhaust or sleep deprivation, so now you get to experience 5% damage from a fun cause like molly." That's just a really weird way of thinking about this.
People are within their moral rights to run the risk but I don't understand this defensiveness that it's somehow a good or smart risk to run for the average case of abuse.
Your suggestions, while interesting, don't remove these risks. Yes, certain types of abuse make it worse: dosing higher, polydrug abuse, hot environments, and dehydration are all ways to damage your brain further. However, use of MDMA in an ideal sense probably still causes some level of damage.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16472832/
2mg/kg dose, so ~160mg for an adult human. More importantly rat to human is usually a 6ish HED factor so that’d be <30mg. In reality metabolism, brain volume, etc all matter but this is not an even remotely safe drug.
This isn't a "purely theoretical exercise", most of those are established mechanisms of amphetamine toxicity. This isn't "listing possible mechanisms", this is sharing salient info of risks of which possible abusers (given the nature of the thread and discussion so far) should be aware.
I'm sure as heck not "ranting out behaviors that would scare a layperson". Most of what I listed is pretty comprehensible with a grasp of high school chem and bio. Most of the information for this is freely available online. The information we have should scare a layman out of use, and probably someone with a greater background, too.
Whatabout-ing with sleep deprivation or similar doesn't make sense to me either. Did I say that was good or healthy? Bad things stack. Your body doesn't keep a record where it says "you've accumulated 10% damage from an un-fun cause like exhaust or sleep deprivation, so now you get to experience 5% damage from a fun cause like molly." That's just a really weird way of thinking about this.
People are within their moral rights to run the risk but I don't understand this defensiveness that it's somehow a good or smart risk to run for the average case of abuse.
It's as if you didn't read my comment. I said nothing about risk mitigation.
I find it unethical to try to scare people away from recreational drug use, for several reasons. One being the inherent distrust of their ability to form their own opinions, another the kind of linguistic gatekeeping involved where scientific information is withheld through the use of professional or academic vocabulary, and yet another that I don't believe that it works, in my experience it has more often than not the opposite effect and enables or fuels harmful behaviour.
Where do you live, is it actually true that they teach neuroscience in highschool there or did you just make that up? Or do you think one can do a risk assessment from your comments without having a scientific understanding and mental model of the nervous system in general, and the central nervous system in particular?
We know from a lot of informal experimental data that sporadic, responsible MDMA use is, on average, very safe. It's likely to be safer than a long term weed habit, which carries a risk of damaging the heart and things like bronchitis, besides the contamination risks which are relatively hard to test for.
Also, it's not "whatabout-ing". Without a frame of reference the risks you bring up are meaningless to most people and useless in regards to policy. To judge whether you want to take the strictly neurotoxic risks involved in dancing on MDMA you'd need to understand how it compares to other factors in your life. In practice few people go about it in this way, however, and for good reason because the immediate risks involved in going to roll at a rave like party are of a quite different nature. Things like traumatic injury from a fall or sexual abuse or financial harm or the psychological effects of mistaken intimacy with strangers or somesuch.
Having fried a piece out of n thousand axon terminals isn't really a concern to most users, and compared to the drudgery of everyday life it likely feels like a low price to pay for many people. To convince them that this should be their primary concern requires another strategy from you..
I find it unethical to try to scare people away from recreational drug use, for several reasons. One being the inherent distrust of their ability to form their own opinions, another the kind of linguistic gatekeeping involved where scientific information is withheld through the use of professional or academic vocabulary, and yet another that I don't believe that it works, in my experience it has more often than not the opposite effect and enables or fuels harmful behaviour.
Where do you live, is it actually true that they teach neuroscience in highschool there or did you just make that up? Or do you think one can do a risk assessment from your comments without having a scientific understanding and mental model of the nervous system in general, and the central nervous system in particular?
We know from a lot of informal experimental data that sporadic, responsible MDMA use is, on average, very safe. It's likely to be safer than a long term weed habit, which carries a risk of damaging the heart and things like bronchitis, besides the contamination risks which are relatively hard to test for.
Also, it's not "whatabout-ing". Without a frame of reference the risks you bring up are meaningless to most people and useless in regards to policy. To judge whether you want to take the strictly neurotoxic risks involved in dancing on MDMA you'd need to understand how it compares to other factors in your life. In practice few people go about it in this way, however, and for good reason because the immediate risks involved in going to roll at a rave like party are of a quite different nature. Things like traumatic injury from a fall or sexual abuse or financial harm or the psychological effects of mistaken intimacy with strangers or somesuch.
Having fried a piece out of n thousand axon terminals isn't really a concern to most users, and compared to the drudgery of everyday life it likely feels like a low price to pay for many people. To convince them that this should be their primary concern requires another strategy from you..
You’re mis-framing this as “scaring”. It’s not. I am talking about real risks that inform my choice not to take drugs because the info available tells me MDMA is significantly too risky.
If you’re suggesting marijuana is also unsafe, I strongly agree. Smoking anything is a risk and more importantly THC is shit for your brain, pro schizophrenic, turns people into lazy fattys, etc. I never have nor will I ever touch THC, absent perhaps light usage for pain if I get cancer or something.
Where I live my high school bio and chem classes gave more than enough foundational knowledge to understand this. It’s not actually that complex and all the remaining info is freely available online.
The risk of molly has little to do with other risk factors besides eg interactions. You fail to understand that risk and damage are the sum of all your risks and damages, not the single highest value. Things stack up.
If your assertion is “frying a little piece of their brains is fine”, I think that’s an extraordinarily reckless thing to do. Adults may have the right to do so, but I will not stop telling them that they are doing so, because most abusers are either unaware or minimize and deny so they can feel good about their abuse.
If you’re suggesting marijuana is also unsafe, I strongly agree. Smoking anything is a risk and more importantly THC is shit for your brain, pro schizophrenic, turns people into lazy fattys, etc. I never have nor will I ever touch THC, absent perhaps light usage for pain if I get cancer or something.
Where I live my high school bio and chem classes gave more than enough foundational knowledge to understand this. It’s not actually that complex and all the remaining info is freely available online.
The risk of molly has little to do with other risk factors besides eg interactions. You fail to understand that risk and damage are the sum of all your risks and damages, not the single highest value. Things stack up.
If your assertion is “frying a little piece of their brains is fine”, I think that’s an extraordinarily reckless thing to do. Adults may have the right to do so, but I will not stop telling them that they are doing so, because most abusers are either unaware or minimize and deny so they can feel good about their abuse.
> I think everyone should be aware that it’s very likely that each MDMA dose is incurring some level of damage that is either long-term or potentially permanent.
In school, I knew a very smart person who got into drugs, especially MDMA. They later got clean, but when they got brain imaging done for some reason, a doctor who looked at it said they could tell the patient had done a lot of MDMA. Reportedly, the damage was visible on the imaging, and it was characteristic.
I'm sorry that my friend had to learn the hard way, and I'm glad that I was always too scared of drugs to try any myself.
In school, I knew a very smart person who got into drugs, especially MDMA. They later got clean, but when they got brain imaging done for some reason, a doctor who looked at it said they could tell the patient had done a lot of MDMA. Reportedly, the damage was visible on the imaging, and it was characteristic.
I'm sorry that my friend had to learn the hard way, and I'm glad that I was always too scared of drugs to try any myself.
Not to be rude but gunna have to call BS on this.
I don’t think MDMA usage shows up like this on brain scans, it’s not even like brain scans are that accurate and that nothing else could cause a scan to look bad.
This smacks of very anecdotal “this is your brain on drugs” energy.
I don’t think MDMA usage shows up like this on brain scans, it’s not even like brain scans are that accurate and that nothing else could cause a scan to look bad.
This smacks of very anecdotal “this is your brain on drugs” energy.
Sounds a lot like the "LSD orange" story that gets told over and over
I relayed what my friend said that the doctor said.
I'm sure that a doctor commenting on imaging knows vastly more about the topic than I do. And probably more than you do.
Or are you asserting that I'm BSing, friend was BSing, doctor was BSing, or doctor had been fed BS?
I'm sure that a doctor commenting on imaging knows vastly more about the topic than I do. And probably more than you do.
Or are you asserting that I'm BSing, friend was BSing, doctor was BSing, or doctor had been fed BS?
So at this point there is a chain of three people who we have to believe and honestly you’ve left out whatever doctor was doing the imaging - usually a radiologist looks at the imaging and interprets it.
Unless they were doing a scan for “does my brain look like I took a bunch of ecstasy” the probability of the radiologist saying “it looks like the patient did a shit ton of ecstasy is close to zero” .
Secondly there is no characteristic markers for ecstasy use - it doesn’t leave a big X on the brain. This idea is like thinking somebody could look at an xray of a broken bone and name the person who caused the damage.
Lastly the story has the characteristics of a normal BS anecdote , with the allusion to authority (a doctor told me!) and it just so happens to dovetail really well with your life choices and validates you. So yea whiff of BS off this one.
Unless they were doing a scan for “does my brain look like I took a bunch of ecstasy” the probability of the radiologist saying “it looks like the patient did a shit ton of ecstasy is close to zero” .
Secondly there is no characteristic markers for ecstasy use - it doesn’t leave a big X on the brain. This idea is like thinking somebody could look at an xray of a broken bone and name the person who caused the damage.
Lastly the story has the characteristics of a normal BS anecdote , with the allusion to authority (a doctor told me!) and it just so happens to dovetail really well with your life choices and validates you. So yea whiff of BS off this one.
To me, my friend (who's always been sincere) saying that a doctor told them something, is more credible than some random person saying that the chance a doctor actually told them that is close to zero.
This is why using anecdotes to determine truth is not reliable.
[deleted]
do you need to make a study to know if your teenager hasnt showered when they smell bad?
[deleted]
So I was a heavy user. Every weekend, up to 5 pills a night, for years through college and into early 20s. This was back in the late 90s early 2000s. Now I am in my 40s. Top rated software engineer by my peers, sharp as hell, getting even sharper every year as my knowledge still grows, described as a true 10x expert engineer because of how much I do and code circles around everyone else. I am not saying this to brag. My point is simply that if there were some sort of permanant damaged cognitive effects, it never affected me like that. I never had any negative side effects ever. Or perhaps there was and I could have been the next Einstein but damaged myself to be where I am now. Guess I'll never know. I havent done again since I was around 22 or 23. It just stopped being enjoyable to me and everyone else I knew had already moved on past the party phase of their lives.
Also, a weird coindidence, during the heaviest usage phases, those were also my highest grades during college.
Do I regret using it so much? Not really. That was probably the happiest I've ever been in my entire life. I have very good memories , some of the best I've ever experienced. Often I think back I wish I could go back and do it again. Being an adult and getting old simply just sucks.
Also, a weird coindidence, during the heaviest usage phases, those were also my highest grades during college.
Do I regret using it so much? Not really. That was probably the happiest I've ever been in my entire life. I have very good memories , some of the best I've ever experienced. Often I think back I wish I could go back and do it again. Being an adult and getting old simply just sucks.
> it's amazing how quickly people go from “a couple times per year on special occasions” to having 20-30 exposures over a decade or two
a couple times a year is 20 exposures over a decade. were you trying to demonstrate an escalation? did you mean 20 over a year?
a couple times a year is 20 exposures over a decade. were you trying to demonstrate an escalation? did you mean 20 over a year?
Following on from my earlier post in this topic about LSD, we also had more than a couple of years where it was pills, pills and more pills, every weekend.
By this time most people I knew were working, serious work (with serious pay), so it was heavy on for the weekend, but then an enforced 5 days/nights off to work (gotta pay for your habits).
I never really had suicide Tuesdays, or the various variants of it, usually managed to get some food or calories into me during the weekend, probably the worst of it was just the sleep deficit.
It started to taper off when children started arriving, as the double hit on sleep deficit, even if all the other problems and responsibilities could be managed, was just a killer.
I would argue that no noticeable cognitive decline occurred, I have worked 30 odd years in a highly demanding profession demanding abstract thought and the ability to deal with lots of details and join dots others may not see. So I think I would notice if I was fried.
One thing was, pretty early on, I got on to the concept that most drugs are buy now, pay later. And that if you were going to do something that was going to vastly increase the rate of consumption of certain precursor chemicals in the mind and body, to preload heavily to avoid depletion burn out.
So I had a standard stack of supplements we almost always would take first. Maybe why I never really had the Monday/Tuesday crashes many seemed to, as well.
By this time most people I knew were working, serious work (with serious pay), so it was heavy on for the weekend, but then an enforced 5 days/nights off to work (gotta pay for your habits).
I never really had suicide Tuesdays, or the various variants of it, usually managed to get some food or calories into me during the weekend, probably the worst of it was just the sleep deficit.
It started to taper off when children started arriving, as the double hit on sleep deficit, even if all the other problems and responsibilities could be managed, was just a killer.
I would argue that no noticeable cognitive decline occurred, I have worked 30 odd years in a highly demanding profession demanding abstract thought and the ability to deal with lots of details and join dots others may not see. So I think I would notice if I was fried.
One thing was, pretty early on, I got on to the concept that most drugs are buy now, pay later. And that if you were going to do something that was going to vastly increase the rate of consumption of certain precursor chemicals in the mind and body, to preload heavily to avoid depletion burn out.
So I had a standard stack of supplements we almost always would take first. Maybe why I never really had the Monday/Tuesday crashes many seemed to, as well.
What supplements did you take?
Chellated magnesium made a big difference, plus tryptophan and l-tyrosine, vit c and SAME.
SAME is interesting, when US was handing out prozac the EU was doing SAME, for similar efficacy and way less side effects. Most countries it is OTC.
SAME is interesting, when US was handing out prozac the EU was doing SAME, for similar efficacy and way less side effects. Most countries it is OTC.
> everyone should be aware that it’s very likely that each MDMA dose is incurring some level of damage
I think this is overstating the risk in supervised clinical usage, depending on what you mean by "some level of damage." It's possible that a single alcoholic beverage may induce some level of damage, but that is irrelevant for most drinkers. A more realistic comparison might be the risk associated with surgical anesthesia, which is significant, but that doesn't mean surgery should be necessarily avoided. There are always risk/benefit tradeoffs, and the MAPS research has focused primarily on MDMA use after other therapies have failed.
The MAPS Investigator's Brochure[0] acknowledges that, while preclinical studies in animals have shown serotonergic neurotoxicity at high or repeated doses, there is as yet no consistent evidence of neurotoxicity in controlled clinical settings with limited dosing. The report characterizes high-, medium-, and low-level risks. No high-level risks were identified, and medium-level risks are mainly cardiovascular and psychological.
[0] https://maps.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/MDMA-IB-15th-Edi...
I think this is overstating the risk in supervised clinical usage, depending on what you mean by "some level of damage." It's possible that a single alcoholic beverage may induce some level of damage, but that is irrelevant for most drinkers. A more realistic comparison might be the risk associated with surgical anesthesia, which is significant, but that doesn't mean surgery should be necessarily avoided. There are always risk/benefit tradeoffs, and the MAPS research has focused primarily on MDMA use after other therapies have failed.
The MAPS Investigator's Brochure[0] acknowledges that, while preclinical studies in animals have shown serotonergic neurotoxicity at high or repeated doses, there is as yet no consistent evidence of neurotoxicity in controlled clinical settings with limited dosing. The report characterizes high-, medium-, and low-level risks. No high-level risks were identified, and medium-level risks are mainly cardiovascular and psychological.
[0] https://maps.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/MDMA-IB-15th-Edi...
Used far too much of it from 18 years old to as about 30 years old. I think it has played havoc with my short term memory. It has certainly made my work much more difficult. If I could change anything in my past it would be this. I'm pretty much playing my career on hard mode because of this.
Light studies have different expectations on their numbers and doesn't mean crossing that is a health risk.
For me, MDMA was definitely a crazy positive experience. It def helped against my depression in sense of letting me experience and remembering the experience something I haven't known existed before.
For me, MDMA was definitely a crazy positive experience. It def helped against my depression in sense of letting me experience and remembering the experience something I haven't known existed before.
If it's ok to ask: what was it that you experienced that you hadn't known existed before?
At the moment of taking it, a huge amount of empathy and happiness.
After that the memories of that day and feeling
After that the memories of that day and feeling
Wow. And thanks. I don't mean to pry, but did this make you want to take it repeatedly?
I ask because I've seen people get in trouble this way. They have a first experience which is amazing and then get into chasing it.
I ask because I've seen people get in trouble this way. They have a first experience which is amazing and then get into chasing it.
Thank you for being the necessary but resposible buzzkill in conversations like this
There's nothing necessary about it, if anything it just lowers the signal to noise ratio
I don't know where you get your facts from but every issue you brought up has either been thoroughly debunked (cognitive deficits) or borders on sensationalism (fentanyl)
Was about to call my old dealer; cheers
Something I see a lot these days, what with modern scientism and all, is that even a tiny amount of $x causes permanent damage. You hear it about everything, from sunlight exposure to alcohol to sleep deprivation to red meat consumption. Most of the studies, of course, are an amusing combination of poor study design, funding bias and/or p-hacking, but occasionally a well-designed independently funded study by honest people slips through. Typically these studies will show the effect size so small as to be negligible. For example the Nature study about alcohol consumption shrinking brains showed an effect size over a lifetime of drinking equivalent to a fraction of the brain shrinkage that occurs over a normal year. Statistically significant? Yes. Practically significant, and enough to outweigh any benefits? Ehh...
But the larger problem is that the slabs of thinking meat that we inhabit are the most complex system in the known universe, and it is usually impossible to understand the effects of a single chemical. I wrote about this here a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42326209
But the larger problem is that the slabs of thinking meat that we inhabit are the most complex system in the known universe, and it is usually impossible to understand the effects of a single chemical. I wrote about this here a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42326209
> I did, in fact, experience seeing your wife dancing freely and openly under scintillating lights and thinking: "wow."
That's not cool, man. How would you feel if someone looked at your wife that way?
That's not cool, man. How would you feel if someone looked at your wife that way?
Thanks. Fixed it. Meant "my wife."
Naturally, the original version was a lot more funny though.
It makes me exceedingly happy if people think my partner is hot. Different strokes I guess
Different strokes indeed
Try loving kindness meditation, never took MDMA but the realizations you describe feel very familiar.
Fortunately in many states now you can just go to a local dispensary and buy weed. I usually get edibles because it's better than inhaling smoke. Now for me it sometimes replaces an evening beer, usually just 2.5mg or 5mg for a light buzz. You probably don't hear much from casual users because we're not talking about it because it doesn't define us, any more than a morning cup of coffee does.
Whether beer or weed, I'm usually having it after the kids are in bed and I'm just chilling before my bedtime.
As for other drugs, I don't bother simply because I'm not interested in getting involved in the illicit drug scene. I don't have time for that.
Whether beer or weed, I'm usually having it after the kids are in bed and I'm just chilling before my bedtime.
As for other drugs, I don't bother simply because I'm not interested in getting involved in the illicit drug scene. I don't have time for that.
> Where the responsible casual adult drug users at???
The majority of alcohol drinkers fit this description: Occasional, casual use in very moderate doses.
However, as I’ve gotten older I’ve been surprised at how many people I know grew to fit your description: They either diverge toward consuming a lot less of a drug or abstaining completely, or they get trapped into an escalation where they do it too much, too often, or at too high of a dose.
Even the people who I considered the most discipline and responsible users grew up to have a period of problematic use that they didn’t see coming.
I have a friend who worked in the rehab field for a while. He said if you took a look at their patients without knowing the context you’d never guess their common problem was drugs. People from all walks of life get trapped in abuse patterns.
Some go from stable use to an abuse spiral when triggered by a stressful event: A divorce, breakup, or difficult quarter at work. Some spiral when they enter a new friend group that pushes it and makes access easy. Others spiral out of control when they hit depression or even a period of boredom.
At this point in my life I even know one person who spiraled deeply out of control on classic psychedelics, which many on the internet will claim is impossible or “something else must be going on” because it goes against typical drug use wisdom. Yet it happened and it’s a problem.
Side note: Much has been written about MDMA safety in recent years but the neuroscience people I know state in no uncertain terms that they will never touch that specific drug due to neurotoxicity.
The majority of alcohol drinkers fit this description: Occasional, casual use in very moderate doses.
However, as I’ve gotten older I’ve been surprised at how many people I know grew to fit your description: They either diverge toward consuming a lot less of a drug or abstaining completely, or they get trapped into an escalation where they do it too much, too often, or at too high of a dose.
Even the people who I considered the most discipline and responsible users grew up to have a period of problematic use that they didn’t see coming.
I have a friend who worked in the rehab field for a while. He said if you took a look at their patients without knowing the context you’d never guess their common problem was drugs. People from all walks of life get trapped in abuse patterns.
Some go from stable use to an abuse spiral when triggered by a stressful event: A divorce, breakup, or difficult quarter at work. Some spiral when they enter a new friend group that pushes it and makes access easy. Others spiral out of control when they hit depression or even a period of boredom.
At this point in my life I even know one person who spiraled deeply out of control on classic psychedelics, which many on the internet will claim is impossible or “something else must be going on” because it goes against typical drug use wisdom. Yet it happened and it’s a problem.
Side note: Much has been written about MDMA safety in recent years but the neuroscience people I know state in no uncertain terms that they will never touch that specific drug due to neurotoxicity.
can't really grow up and do drugs responsibly
It's more like a genetic lottery. If you didn't get the right set, there is no such thing as responsible use, only abstinence or destruction.
The challenge for society is how to grapple with this genetic inequity.
Zero tolerance would probably be best for everyone, at the expense of the entertainment of some. It would also be impossible to legally enforce and seems to result in abusive policing and organized crime.
Laissez-faire would fix the above problems, at the expense of those genetically predisposed to addiction, which is a significant percentage of society, and which has been shown to have horrible social side effects in terms of crime, mental health, child abuse, and mortality.
It's a hard problem.
I'm not sure. My parents are heavy drug abusers. All my grandparents were alcoholics.
The only thing I'm mildly addicted to is coffee and I roll once every 2 years on mollie.
A few differences:
1. I've been pushed hard to do education. I did and became way more science-minded than anyone in my family.
2. I've seen the effects of drug abuse on my parents/grand parents. I was anti-drugs until 21.
3. I opened up experimenting when I was 27. All my parents/grand parents got hooked between the ages of 13 and 16.
The only thing I'm mildly addicted to is coffee and I roll once every 2 years on mollie.
A few differences:
1. I've been pushed hard to do education. I did and became way more science-minded than anyone in my family.
2. I've seen the effects of drug abuse on my parents/grand parents. I was anti-drugs until 21.
3. I opened up experimenting when I was 27. All my parents/grand parents got hooked between the ages of 13 and 16.
Sounds more like you've just bought into some over simplification of genetic effects on addictive behavior. It's definitely not all or nothing for everyone.
It's definitely not all or nothing for everyone.
What's MDMA's addiction risk profile and therapeutic use potential vs. other "party drugs" such as - say - cocaine?
Molly addiction risk: low. Once your brains serotonin is depleted, the drug stops working, and the hangover isn’t really something to be avoided.
Cocaine addiction risk: moderate. Similar to alcohol. Most people won’t end up otherwise a bonafide addiction but some will. Its use is inherently addictive, most people do not have just “one” bump and then go home.
Molly therapeutic use: still under research, but extremely promising in helping to resolve ptsd and other similar issues. Potentially other uses, too.
Cocaine: used as an anesthetic. It can also be used to reverse the effects of some other drugs in emergency situations (I.e. canceling out a downer, or other situations where you need a burst of energy)
Cocaine addiction risk: moderate. Similar to alcohol. Most people won’t end up otherwise a bonafide addiction but some will. Its use is inherently addictive, most people do not have just “one” bump and then go home.
Molly therapeutic use: still under research, but extremely promising in helping to resolve ptsd and other similar issues. Potentially other uses, too.
Cocaine: used as an anesthetic. It can also be used to reverse the effects of some other drugs in emergency situations (I.e. canceling out a downer, or other situations where you need a burst of energy)
I am a responsible drug user. I think we’re not noticed much because if you are a reasonably well adjusted individual, you will be low key about it.
It’s called self reflection and not buying into the lifestyle.
Many drugs kind of suck and you have to be tactical in their use.
I do coke once perhaps every quarter. MDMA maybe once a year? I avoid overdoing it because they both come with a terrible, unpleasant downer, especially if you do too much. I have access to great coke and great MDMA.
I smoke weed perhaps 10-15 times a year. I used to smoke it daily when I was suffering from severe depression. I credit cannabis with being alive.
I don’t want to end up with some weird ass world view, so I’ve avoided LSD and mushrooms. I did mescaline twice - highly recommend.
Alcohol and tobacco I’ve stopped. Terrible drugs overall.
So we do exist, us responsible drug users. I suspect the drug using population in general, due to the legality and taboo of their usage, will be of a less stable character compared to the general population. I suspect this plays a big part in your observation.
It’s called self reflection and not buying into the lifestyle.
Many drugs kind of suck and you have to be tactical in their use.
I do coke once perhaps every quarter. MDMA maybe once a year? I avoid overdoing it because they both come with a terrible, unpleasant downer, especially if you do too much. I have access to great coke and great MDMA.
I smoke weed perhaps 10-15 times a year. I used to smoke it daily when I was suffering from severe depression. I credit cannabis with being alive.
I don’t want to end up with some weird ass world view, so I’ve avoided LSD and mushrooms. I did mescaline twice - highly recommend.
Alcohol and tobacco I’ve stopped. Terrible drugs overall.
So we do exist, us responsible drug users. I suspect the drug using population in general, due to the legality and taboo of their usage, will be of a less stable character compared to the general population. I suspect this plays a big part in your observation.
> I don’t want to end up with some weird ass world view, so I’ve avoided LSD and mushrooms.
I'd be with you if you said ayahuasca, or maybe iboga, but mushrooms are really pleasant and I don't know anyone that has come back weird from a strong mushroom trip. LSD is one of my favorites, but it's definitely life altering if given the right set and setting, and many people are looking for escape rather than deep internal work. I still think most people would benefit from it at least once in their lives, as long as the conditions are right for it.
But I agree with you overall, you can certainly take drugs here and there and be a perfectly well adjusted individual. I'd argue maybe even more so than the masses out there drinking alcohol every night!
I'd be with you if you said ayahuasca, or maybe iboga, but mushrooms are really pleasant and I don't know anyone that has come back weird from a strong mushroom trip. LSD is one of my favorites, but it's definitely life altering if given the right set and setting, and many people are looking for escape rather than deep internal work. I still think most people would benefit from it at least once in their lives, as long as the conditions are right for it.
But I agree with you overall, you can certainly take drugs here and there and be a perfectly well adjusted individual. I'd argue maybe even more so than the masses out there drinking alcohol every night!
> I don't know anyone that has come back weird from a strong mushroom trip
I do. It can have long term manic effects for bipolar folk. Person I know hadn't been diagnosed yet at the time
I do. It can have long term manic effects for bipolar folk. Person I know hadn't been diagnosed yet at the time
It's probably consumer-oriented social programming that's responsible - the ideology of 'more is better' is pretty baked-in these days. The entire business model of the recreational drug industry - both legal and illegal - is built around the heavy user, regardless of whether the substance is alcohol or amphetamine.
The amusing thing from the chemist's point of view is that the legal substances sold cheaply over-the-counter - ibuprofen, aspirin, etc. - or even the prescription antibiotics, which are not much more expensive - are not easier or harder to synthesize than the illegal drugs, from LSD to MDMA. Incidentally, a large proportion of what's clandestinely sold as MDMA is just some amphetamine derivative like Adderall, possibly blended with small amounts of fentanyl to create the 'happy glow' effect.
Literally the only reason there's a lot of money in the illegal drug business is that the drugs are illegal. This in turn generates associated profits in the private prison industry, as illegal industries are unregulated and typically use violence to enforce contractual agreements, instead of the courts.
Just legalize and educate - excessive drug and alcohol use destroys your mind and your body in exchange for fleeting pleasures, it's never a good idea.
The amusing thing from the chemist's point of view is that the legal substances sold cheaply over-the-counter - ibuprofen, aspirin, etc. - or even the prescription antibiotics, which are not much more expensive - are not easier or harder to synthesize than the illegal drugs, from LSD to MDMA. Incidentally, a large proportion of what's clandestinely sold as MDMA is just some amphetamine derivative like Adderall, possibly blended with small amounts of fentanyl to create the 'happy glow' effect.
Literally the only reason there's a lot of money in the illegal drug business is that the drugs are illegal. This in turn generates associated profits in the private prison industry, as illegal industries are unregulated and typically use violence to enforce contractual agreements, instead of the courts.
Just legalize and educate - excessive drug and alcohol use destroys your mind and your body in exchange for fleeting pleasures, it's never a good idea.
They are all over the place, but they don't go around advertising that fact specifically because so many people hold opinions like that where you are either an addict and screw-up or completely abstain. Also people with any sort of professional job are going to be extra careful about exposing their drug usage because it can ruin their whole career. Even flimsy accusations can be quite damaging in many professions.
How would you know if your coworker, neighbor, or anyone else was a responsible drug user unless they told you? We’re harder to spot, but I know plenty.
> The only way to keep getting good drugs that I know of is to keep in touch with friends on the latter path, but I don't really want to associate much with them.
It’s a lot easier to get drugs without connections than it used to be. A couple hundred bucks of Monero, the tor browser, and a DanceSafe testing kit with fentanyl strips is all you need.
> Where the responsible casual adult drug users at???
Quietly getting high and not broadcasting their drug use. There are a lot more than you think. I was recently surprised to find out that one of my childhood friend’s parents, who I had considered to be the most straight laced and/or puritanical family in the community, regularly drink magic mushroom tea that the church sound guy buys for them off the dark web. Once you include prescription medication, the number of people high on something on any given day approaches 100%. People be trippin balls, yo.
It’s a lot easier to get drugs without connections than it used to be. A couple hundred bucks of Monero, the tor browser, and a DanceSafe testing kit with fentanyl strips is all you need.
> Where the responsible casual adult drug users at???
Quietly getting high and not broadcasting their drug use. There are a lot more than you think. I was recently surprised to find out that one of my childhood friend’s parents, who I had considered to be the most straight laced and/or puritanical family in the community, regularly drink magic mushroom tea that the church sound guy buys for them off the dark web. Once you include prescription medication, the number of people high on something on any given day approaches 100%. People be trippin balls, yo.
> Once you include prescription medication, the number of people high on something on any given day approaches 100%
100% of people are not on prescription drugs. Most prescription drugs do not have euphoric or “high” producing effects.
Even among drugs with recreational effects, people who take them as directed at therapeutic doses will not be “high” when using them regularly. The person who has taken the same dose of Adderall daily for ADHD for a decade isn’t buzzing and getting things done like someone taking their first 10 doses they borrowed from a friend. The chronic pain patient on a stable dose of a opioid is certainly not feeling a buzz, just temporary relief from their pain. The recreational effects are short lived.
We need to stop this false equivalence between people taking medication and people being “high”.
100% of people are not on prescription drugs. Most prescription drugs do not have euphoric or “high” producing effects.
Even among drugs with recreational effects, people who take them as directed at therapeutic doses will not be “high” when using them regularly. The person who has taken the same dose of Adderall daily for ADHD for a decade isn’t buzzing and getting things done like someone taking their first 10 doses they borrowed from a friend. The chronic pain patient on a stable dose of a opioid is certainly not feeling a buzz, just temporary relief from their pain. The recreational effects are short lived.
We need to stop this false equivalence between people taking medication and people being “high”.
> We need to stop this false equivalence between people taking medication and people being “high”.
Fair. But we should do the same for the false non-equivalence between alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and "drugs"!
At which point, GP's 100% comment is a reasonable approximation of truth. :)
Fair. But we should do the same for the false non-equivalence between alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and "drugs"!
At which point, GP's 100% comment is a reasonable approximation of truth. :)
Caffeine and alcohol are both pretty popular, and I would guess the majority of adults take one or the other or both. I'm willing to be educated if someone has numbers.
Great point, I didn’t mean to make that equivalence and that last line was made in jest.
In my defense, I haven’t had my coffee with Bailey’s yet (cough :).
In my defense, I haven’t had my coffee with Bailey’s yet (cough :).
I agree. It was my favorite. Used to do it a lot in my 20s. I'm in my late 40s now. Haven't done it in years but I would love to do it once a year and just dance my ass off at an event or festival.
I personally don't like weed. I am not a fan of smoking/vaping anything (the act of smoking itself) and I've tried edibles/gummies of varying mg and types and just never found a high I enjoyed on it.
I enjoyed LSD when I was young but would probably find it too much now. Mushrooms are great though, but also haven't done that in years. Would also do that once or twice a year.
I personally don't like weed. I am not a fan of smoking/vaping anything (the act of smoking itself) and I've tried edibles/gummies of varying mg and types and just never found a high I enjoyed on it.
I enjoyed LSD when I was young but would probably find it too much now. Mushrooms are great though, but also haven't done that in years. Would also do that once or twice a year.
Some drug info teams at festivals told me I'm the most responsible drug user there is when I told them that I take MDMA at most once per year but preferably less.
Also the test lab I come into were excited to see me when I came in to test DMT.
But I prefer to do it in private with a close friend, or two. I've done it twice at festivals (MDMA). In both cases, while it was fun, it was also quite chaotic at times.
Countries where you can test your substances [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_checking
Also the test lab I come into were excited to see me when I came in to test DMT.
But I prefer to do it in private with a close friend, or two. I've done it twice at festivals (MDMA). In both cases, while it was fun, it was also quite chaotic at times.
Countries where you can test your substances [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_checking
In the USA and many other places, one is not allowed to do what one likes with one's own mind. (For those who haven't gotten the memo.) Whether that's right or wrong, potential legal consequences alter the in vacuo definition/calculus of "responsible use".
If one decides that legal consequences are no matter, and if one disregards the consequences of any effects on others, then another option is to find or grow one's own. Indeed, in some but not all jurisdictions, magic-mushroom spores (for microscopy purposes only, of course) are perfectly legal to possess and even mail. For non-plants and non-fungi, the analog, I suppose, would be to thoroughly master practical chemistry and synthesize whatever one wants for oneself in a home laboratory.
None of this is legal advice, of course. Don't break the law. And carefully examine and consider past, present, and future life choices.
P.S.: I see many other comments mentioning that weed or other drugs are "legal" in certain states. Don't be duped: many of the substances they refer to are still illegal federally. Federal law is distinct from state law. The federal government's policy (if any) of not enforcing certain laws does not mean it can't or it won't. Again, none of this is legal advice.
If one decides that legal consequences are no matter, and if one disregards the consequences of any effects on others, then another option is to find or grow one's own. Indeed, in some but not all jurisdictions, magic-mushroom spores (for microscopy purposes only, of course) are perfectly legal to possess and even mail. For non-plants and non-fungi, the analog, I suppose, would be to thoroughly master practical chemistry and synthesize whatever one wants for oneself in a home laboratory.
None of this is legal advice, of course. Don't break the law. And carefully examine and consider past, present, and future life choices.
P.S.: I see many other comments mentioning that weed or other drugs are "legal" in certain states. Don't be duped: many of the substances they refer to are still illegal federally. Federal law is distinct from state law. The federal government's policy (if any) of not enforcing certain laws does not mean it can't or it won't. Again, none of this is legal advice.
I expect any attempt to enforce marijuana laws by the federal government would be extremely unpopular.
Come to Denver, while there are plenty of folks that fall into both of the categories you lament, there are plenty of occasional adult users too. I suspect its a combination of both the legal status of both weed and natural medicines as well as the music scene. I have many friends who enjoy the occasional trip and you would never know from a casual conversation.
I take it once a year with a community of about 150 like minded friends at my house in Vermont. It's amazing.
Find your tribe. It does exist.
Find your tribe. It does exist.
I’m impressed you host 150 people once a year. That has to be a lot of work.
and they are friends and like minded. Even more impressive when you consider that is close to half the population of Vermont
Chillits has been doing it yearly, for 26 years, with about 300 people. Meritocracy based volunteer organization. It is a lot of work, but when a community of like-minded people comes together around a single event, it is quite powerful.
How do you find 150 like minded people?
I am impressed. I know a few people like me but 150 is a lot.
I’m really curious to know how one goes about this.
I am impressed. I know a few people like me but 150 is a lot.
I’m really curious to know how one goes about this.
MDMA is not safe at all for rec use. It’s known to lesion the serotonergic system, even with a single dose. HED is always hard but if you compare the rat dosage they used with a typical 6-7x adjustment I think it comes in at not 150mg ish for a 175lb adult. Not that high relative to common dosing, especially if you’re a 98lb rave chick not a 175lb male.
Now factor in how hard it is to actually dose and the possible inclusion of other amphetamine analogs. Eg I’ve heard of para-chloro(meth)amphetamine showing up a few times, which is used intentionally as a neurotoxin to permanently destroy neurons.
And of course you have dysregulation of the brain’s temperature, magnified by the hot and high-cardio environments where MDMA is usually taken, which can be additionally neurotoxic.
If you synthesize your own or know someone who can, your risk is lower, but MDMA is simply not a safe thing to take.
Now factor in how hard it is to actually dose and the possible inclusion of other amphetamine analogs. Eg I’ve heard of para-chloro(meth)amphetamine showing up a few times, which is used intentionally as a neurotoxin to permanently destroy neurons.
And of course you have dysregulation of the brain’s temperature, magnified by the hot and high-cardio environments where MDMA is usually taken, which can be additionally neurotoxic.
If you synthesize your own or know someone who can, your risk is lower, but MDMA is simply not a safe thing to take.
Millions of people do it semi regularly.
They also do other unsafe things like drive cars and cross roads (anywhere in most countries where jay walking isn't a thing).
They also do other unsafe things like drive cars and cross roads (anywhere in most countries where jay walking isn't a thing).
I didn't say it was likely to kill you, I said it was unsafe, that harm-reduction methods are wholly inadequate to making it safe, and that users should be aware of that. If people want to give informed consent to run those risks, be my guest, but "people do other unsafe things" 1. ignores that most of those don't directly cause brain damage, and 2. not all risky things are of equal risk, and brain damage is probably higher up than jay walking.
I wonder if this is the difference between functional user, who is clearly overdoing it, but is on the 'latter path' and 'casual adult drug user' that checks in once a year for novelty value. I personally do not have big enough social circle to draw any real conclusions here.
I think one of the causes of addiction is dopamine dysregulation where the normal feels bad and drugs help fix that, at least temporarily. I wonder if instead of using strong drugs such people would be better off skipping the addiction part and go direct to a rehab where they use a weaker drug like modafinil. I think the dopamine dysregulation caused by strong drugs is already likely pre-existing in those who are seeking the drugs in an effort to fill the hole. Those same people are more likely to become addicted and have more difficulty quitting.
I take Modafinil at half the normal dose of 100mg and have been on that same dose steadily for years with little sign of building a tolerance or an addiction.
I take Modafinil at half the normal dose of 100mg and have been on that same dose steadily for years with little sign of building a tolerance or an addiction.
Modafinil aka provigil? As opposed to taking an amphetamine? I can never find modafinil, I've wanted it forever because I like staying up 48 hours a few times a year. Coffee only gets me to 32 hours, miserably.
I find that stuff like methadone is really quite strong, and I don't see how it isn't addictive. I figure it's to keep addicts alive while they get treatment instead of them getting a hot shot somewhere and ending up in a grave.
I find that stuff like methadone is really quite strong, and I don't see how it isn't addictive. I figure it's to keep addicts alive while they get treatment instead of them getting a hot shot somewhere and ending up in a grave.
I remember my first hit of modafinil, it was a rush, too much energy and unpleasant even at the half dose of 100mg. But this appears to only happen to people who have a pre-existing dopamine dysregulation. I've given modafinil to many people who appear to have rather normal pre-existing dopamine levels and they've reported practically zero effects.
The brain quickly adjusts and the rush from the modafinil goes away, it was gone by my second dose - it feels rather more like a coffee but longer lasting and smoother / cleaner I guess, it's hard to describe.
I think most people seeking such drugs are actually self medicating and would generally choose normal if it was an option. While I do have access to stronger drugs I have no desire for them. I also take Amitriptyline which helps balance out the Modafinil and the two together with Modafinil in the morning and Amitriptyline at night have been really effective at treating my dysautonomia and keeping me on a productive even keel.
The brain quickly adjusts and the rush from the modafinil goes away, it was gone by my second dose - it feels rather more like a coffee but longer lasting and smoother / cleaner I guess, it's hard to describe.
I think most people seeking such drugs are actually self medicating and would generally choose normal if it was an option. While I do have access to stronger drugs I have no desire for them. I also take Amitriptyline which helps balance out the Modafinil and the two together with Modafinil in the morning and Amitriptyline at night have been really effective at treating my dysautonomia and keeping me on a productive even keel.
> I find that stuff like methadone is really quite strong, and I don't see how it isn't addictive. I figure it's to keep addicts alive while they get treatment instead of them getting a hot shot somewhere and ending up in a grave.
I am not an expert, but yes Methadone is addictive. It is drug replacement therapy, and Methadone is still a drug. The primary criticism of its use in addiction treatment is that it replaces dependence on one drug, like Heroin, with dependence on Methadone. A benefit of its use is indeed that it's a well regulated drug whose composition is known.
My understanding of why it helps in addiction treatment is that it triggers the same receptors as the drug it replaces, therefore satisfying the addiction, but it produces less intense effects and stays active for much longer, with less severe withdrawal symptoms spread out over a longer time period.
I am not an expert, but yes Methadone is addictive. It is drug replacement therapy, and Methadone is still a drug. The primary criticism of its use in addiction treatment is that it replaces dependence on one drug, like Heroin, with dependence on Methadone. A benefit of its use is indeed that it's a well regulated drug whose composition is known.
My understanding of why it helps in addiction treatment is that it triggers the same receptors as the drug it replaces, therefore satisfying the addiction, but it produces less intense effects and stays active for much longer, with less severe withdrawal symptoms spread out over a longer time period.
AFAIK it's the speed of the effect that is the dominant cause of addiction in this class of drugs, the drug has to outrun counter effects in the brain. Modafinil is slow onset and long lasting. It's also a weaker ligand so the body/brain can still overcome the effect so if you don't allow your body to rest modafinil won't be able to keep you awake. I've had to go cold turkey a few times and it was rather mild.
They’re in the VIP sections at music festivals
One thing that the upwards explosion in ticket prices has done is practically ensured only responsible people can go!
I love what the people I meet are into in professionally, as its pretty top tier professions and investing, and I have pretty much have nothing in common with the people that resent and lament the costs. (Payment plans are somewhat resetting that but the prices are continuing to increase, and there’s just a couple a wooks to spice things up)
Having a drug experience regiment by day is pretty common
One thing that the upwards explosion in ticket prices has done is practically ensured only responsible people can go!
I love what the people I meet are into in professionally, as its pretty top tier professions and investing, and I have pretty much have nothing in common with the people that resent and lament the costs. (Payment plans are somewhat resetting that but the prices are continuing to increase, and there’s just a couple a wooks to spice things up)
Having a drug experience regiment by day is pretty common
I’m in the quit drugs completely camp but I have to say that it wasn’t because of drug abuse or addiction. Leading up to the birth of my daughter I just decided it didn’t fit in with a family lifestyle.
I would be the once a year occasional user in my 30s but I have no idea where to get it anymore after moving to a city in my 20s. I have no interest in going to nightclubs and chatting kids a decade younger than me to get ripped off. And same for cannabis, I completely stopped smoking but it's not because I can't find any - it's legal here - I just don't care. It's not fun anymore.
>Where the responsible casual adult drug users at???
They are around you all the time, but they don't advertise because it isn't a personality defining hobby for them.
Regarding weed, I feel like it is still more common than not. Working professional that will have a gummy or toke in a social setting or after putting the kids down.
They are around you all the time, but they don't advertise because it isn't a personality defining hobby for them.
Regarding weed, I feel like it is still more common than not. Working professional that will have a gummy or toke in a social setting or after putting the kids down.
Isn't this the golden age for casual weed users, with the many states that have legalized recreational use?
Decriminalized? As I noted in my other comment, it's still illegal federally, and the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns that can and do independently create and enforce laws (subject to various federal constitutional limitations).
Sure, this is correct.
But there are recreational cannabis dispensaries, collecting state sales and cannabis taxes, in (almost literally) every other strip mall commercial district in many US states. They might be more common than liquor stores, honestly.
That fits no practical definition of "illegal" in an ordinary person's daily life.
But there are recreational cannabis dispensaries, collecting state sales and cannabis taxes, in (almost literally) every other strip mall commercial district in many US states. They might be more common than liquor stores, honestly.
That fits no practical definition of "illegal" in an ordinary person's daily life.
Meh, living in Michigan, it's clearly a free for all.
Same in Oregon. Nobody cares.
They are pretty common in Berlin. Some people are fine with a responsible amount every once in a while.
Weed doesn't hit for me, but it's so easy to buy good mushrooms near me. It's like a nice weekend vacation to just walk around my neighborhood (or better, go to a cottage and trip in nature).
[deleted]
I disagree how you equate being able to use drugs casually with being responsible and adult, as its a matter of character.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Finally, someone on HN I can relate to. My wife and I love luxury dining experiences, so we eat at McDonalds 364 nights a year and go to the highest rated Michelin 3-star restaurant on the 365th night.
Nothing to be ashamed about just because you can afford it more so than so many other devout fans of food service.
And don't cook or do anything else? That's pretty extreme.
The responsible drug user is a myth created to sell more drugs. Most illegal drugs are both addictive and tolerance causing. It is certainly true of MDMA. That means you will not get the same effect, from the same amount next time. You will have to increase your dosage to get the same or similar experience.
So you either stop using the drug (if you are lucky) or go on a downward spiral of higher doses, more negative side effects and life deterioration.
So you either stop using the drug (if you are lucky) or go on a downward spiral of higher doses, more negative side effects and life deterioration.
kmeisthax(1)