woah, I ate some xtc

X screws w/ your brain...big time!

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=475137#post475137

 

I do agree, however, there's something wrong with those brainscan images. Note the top set of images show no ventricles, which is kinda surprising since they are these huge 'gaps' in the middle of the brain. You can see them in the bottom set of images, most clearly in the last 4 pictures.





Maybe someone just posted the wrong set of images?

Here's the source:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol14N4/Ecstasy.html

Doesn't get away from the implications of long-term damage from using ecstacy.

 

well from that thread chronic extasy use causes that damage rather than just occasional use. Obviously taking any drugs isnt going to be great for you but i would imagine long term heavy use of extasy is no worse than long term heavy use of alcohol

 

Uhhh, no!

 

Depends totally on the person.
Some people can take multiple doses of extacy every week for years and be 100% fine. Others can die on first contact, but when someone does die, it's all over the papers and everyone suddenly thinks it's a killer drug, despite the fact that probably hundreds of thousands of doses are taken every month (random figure plucked from the logic side of my brain, as there's no real estimate). Oh, and I'm pretty sure that alcohol would be made illegal if it was invented today, it's actually bad for you.

Point is that drugs are generally bad and I shy away from them, but I don't like the 'OMFG DRUGZZ = DEATH' attitude that people have when drugs have contributed some amazing innovations in art, science and philosophical feats.

 

Bullshit!

Wishful thinking?

 

You are one crazy guy Barry, I like you

 

That's not how it works. Ecstacy depletes the serotonin levels in the brain. Serotonin is a major neurotransmitter and also helps regulate other functions in the body.

There are plenty of official estimates if you care to look.

Maybe. But so what. That's a juvenile argument usually put forward in defence of various forms of drug use. It's really not the point, as this discussion is developing. The point is ecstacy use.

I don't believe anyone said anything about drugs=death. The general tone of this thread is one of discussion. Personally, I find it interesting that major breakthroughs came about through experimentation.

Correction: I'd like to make a correction to my earlier assertion that the pictures did not appear to show the ventricles of the brain. They do. Quite clearly. I was looking with my untrained eye expecting to see a dark 'gap' where they should be. It's there but it is also flooded with serotonin and shows up as gray, meaning the ventricles are actually flooded with serotonin.

 

I wouldnt be suprised if some (a small number) people can take copious ammounts of mdma without any issues, just like some people can drink 100 units of booze a week without any health issues.

I think that for pretty much anything alcohol/illegal drugs/food anything that an excess is going to be bad for you.

You say the alcohol thing is a juvenile argument put forword int he defence of drugs, but i use the argument to show that all the people that preach how bad drugs are tend to be unaware that alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs of the lot.

I use myself as an example, from about 17-22 ish i had issues with booze, i would quite frequently drink in excess of 150 units a week and think nothing of it. However my friends that started taking pills at the weekend i went mental at them and called them dicks etc. I bet any money that the damage i have caused myself through drinking is far more serious than my friends taking pills at the weekend but alcohol is so accepted nobody even judged me but would call people that took pills junkies and wasters etc

 

That's precisely why I say it's a juvenile argument. It presumes that anyone who points out any problems with consuming recreational drugs is

1. pro-alcohol
2. oblivious to the mayhem caused by alcohol
3. unaware of the dangers to health caused directly and indirectly by alcohol consumption
4. in some way unable to see the connection between alcohol and violent crime
5. has no clue about recreational drugs and is merely taking a media-based 'drugs=death' stance

Not the case at all. I'm a well informed person pointing out some highly detailed and researched information about the effects of taking ecstacy, and if you want to expand that to other recreational drugs such as cannabis, speed and cocaine then I'm quite happy to include those as well.

Unfortunately, the recreational drugs have a severe impact on long-term health, in particular, mental health. It isn't a 'don't-take-drugs' argument I'm making, it's a 'this is what happens' one.

Choose your own poison. It's entirely up to you. Just don't try to diminish the impact of that poison with a foundationless argument about another.

 

Well a big majority of people fall in that category mcfox, I'm sure x is bad but I doubt taking it a few times is going to do any serious harm

 

A few times? The dude was saying multiple times a week for years.

And for the record, I'm not some anti-drug mamma's boy. I just hate to see people (kids) do things that they'll end up regretting later in life. Especially when they're not aware of the potential dangers.

 

the % of people that use alcohol and die is a lot greater than the percentage of people that use exctasy and die.

Ocasional ecstasy use is no worse for you than getting drunk once in a while.

Frequenty use is when the problems begin.

 

Well that's an incredibly ignorant statement.

Just because something doesn't KILL you doesn't make it safe.

I never said anything to the contrary. But can you show me research that supports this.

I've used E. a few times and I know that it affects you for days after you take it. So if you have some scientific data that supports your claim, I'd like to see it. Seriously!

 

Thats fair enough, i supppose it is juvenile when arguing about it with someone that knows what they are talkign about. However when most people attack drug use very few people actually understand all about legal and illegal drugs themselves.

Im not pro or anti drugs to be honest, like you i feel that people should just choose what to do them selves but be aware of the dangers.

 

Did I state how it works? I simply said it totally depends on the person. Some people have bad reactions towards it, others are able have little, if any major long lasting effect. This is a characteristic of most illegal drugs, the outcome depends entirely upon the person.

I wasn't able to find any whilst following that link.
The problem with drug estimates is that they're inaccurate, I don't want to know how many 12-16 year olds say they've taken drugs whilst infront of their peers in school doing a questionnaire, I want to know about the 20-30 year olds who never fill in any kind of test. These figures are therefore very inaccurate.

The point is that if ecstacy was founded at the same time of alcohol, and commonly used by *the masses* around the same time of alcohol, would it be illegal to this day? I don't think that there's a definite answer as 48% of all violent crimes are committed by people who are under the influence of alcohol, whereas ecstacy users only harm themselves, alcohol users harm themselves and those around them.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/alcohol-related-crime/

And for the record, I've never even smoked a fag.

 

I think that used to be the case, Ferret, but that nowadays people are much more aware, especially with the regular 'health-drives' churned out in the media and by Government.

Ok, you're Granny might not be clued up about ecstacy or be able to build a joint but people in their 40's and 50's are a lot more aware of what's what.

 

None of that is relevant to this discussion. Those are all just things people say to help justify using the drug.

How old are you?

Ecstacy makes mashed potatoes out of your brain when used frequently. End of story! It has nothing to do w/ alcohol.

 

Ignorance.

Justify the use of the drug? No. Debating the role the media plays in hyping ecstacy into being this beast of a drug, where Alcohol which costs the economy MILLIONS, ruins complete families everyday and is a much bigger problem? Yes.

Your second statement just proves my point, you've been brainwashed to think ecstacy will is really bad for you, yet you'll go and sit down, and watch a Budweiser advert.

Oh, and for 'relevance to the discussion', what kind of discussion is this? I thought it started with some retard with his bragging rights, I wouldn't say that this was the intention of the thread starter - jesus, just read the thread title.

From people who know what they're talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylenedioxymethamphetamine#Long-term_effects

I'm not saying it's not damaging, you can quote me a lot of things from that wikipedia article which show how damaging it is, but I could counter quote that with a bunch of things which show how damaging alcohol is. As I said before, the reason I compare it to alcohol is because people have no problem with alcohol, but it's a much bigger problem than ecstacy has ever been.

 

ALCOHOL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ECSTACY!

WHY DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO COMPARE THEM?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Maybe a cognitive disorder due to heavy ecstacy use?