E, All That You Can E


Watch for drug warriors to knock down any talk of using Ecstasy as a therapeutic drug. Now that claims that E eats your brain have been debunked, MDMA needs a fresh, open evaluation.

NEXT: Still Gotta Pay My Taxes and They Give Us No Pity

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Dan – don’t you know that in the world of Reason, all drugs are harmless, indeed beneficial? What are you, some puritanical moralist?

  2. The list of drugs, legal or illegal, that are harmless if you chomp them down like smarties is exceedingly small.

  3. BTW, MDMA will have a problem even if it is legalized, in that it’s off-patent and can be manufactured generically. So none of the big pharmas will be bothered lobbying on its behalf, since they won’t make any money from making it…

  4. PLC–

    In the world of Reason, drugs are inanimate objects. As with any other inanimate object, they can be either harmful or beneficial, depending on the choices made by the humans who use them.

  5. Chuck – you’ve obviously never read Jacob Sullum. All drugs are pure goodness – the nectar of the gods! You must be a puritanical monster to suggest that they could ever be harmful – either that or you have been brainwashed by the evil drug warriors.

  6. The people to whom drugs are harmful usually would be in the care of society for some other reason were it not for drugs.

  7. PLC: straw man much?

  8. Ron – it’s what I do while run queries…

  9. I can speak from plenty of personal experience and also shared experiences from people whose analysis I respect.

    My experiences both as an X user and also in speaking to large groups of college students throughout Florida suggest that the vast majority (4in5?) of people who use X, AB-use it.

    By that I mean they are either ignorant about how it works on the brain, or they are delusional about what they are feeling (quasi-placebo effect).

    Good X works because it causes the brain to release most all of its serotonin supply at an accelerated pace. The result of this ‘overdose’ of serotonin is what the user is seeking….IT FEELS REALLY GOOD.

    For about 4-6 hours. After that, the only thing you’re likely feeling is the amphetamine portion of the drug.

    A second dose on the same nite, say at the back end of the six hours, might produce a modest surge of remaining serotonin, but is primarily amphetamine.

    After that, the body needs anywhere from 14-21 days to restore serotonin levels to normal.

    So the person who does it every weekend, or every few nites, is delusional if they believe they are getting much of the actual effect. In fact they are simply releasing what small amount of serontonin the body has resupplied, and this return on investment will continue to diminish over repeated doses.

    Most of the research I’ve read and heard from respected sources suggest that using X more often than 4-6 times in ONE YEAR will cause the brain to develop an increased tolerance to the effects anyway.

    Thus the repeat user will indeed end up with constantly depleted serotonin levels and the resulting depression is what folks reefer to as ‘zombie-like’. Still pretty much functional for life activities, but definitely not the life of the party.

    Three cents from Florida,


  10. I should add that the repeat user is not only not receiving the serotonin release. They are in fact pretty much just getting the amphetamine rush, which a younger/ignorant user might interpret as ‘feeling good’. But it’s nothing more than that – a speed rush which likewise diminishes over time, also adding to the ‘depressed’ state of mind, a normal side-effect to withdrawal from amphetamines of any kind.

  11. As for the comments about how Jacob views drugs in general, I’m not him of course, but I think I’m close to his viewpoint in that I believe that ALL drugs can be Good if used responsibly.

    Now different drugs present different levels of difficulty for being used responsibly.

    My own experience with cocaine for instance, suggested to me that it is a very difficult drug to use responsibly, because the short term craving to re-dose can so easily escalate to excessive use and cocaine is akin to my above explanation about X. It opens receptors in the brain that don’t close again for 8-24 hours, so after a short period, all re-dosing fails to add to the psychotropic effect. Thus what remains is the hard amphetamine aspect and the many related negative side effects of that.

    Heroin and other strong opiates carry similar challenge, though it’s primarily because they DO reinforce upon re-dosing, though the body begins to quickly develop a tolerance, so the subsequent doses must be larger and more frequent.

    All that being said, cocaine, X, opiates are all GOOD drugs in that they deliver expected and desired effects to the user. So does alcohol and so do nearly all drugs.

    It’s when one fails to use responsibly that the adverse effects begin to mount not only for the user, but too often for those around the user as well.

  12. I used X a few times nearly a decade a go and found the immedadiate effects very enjoyable. I never took more than one in an evening, lord, it took enough out of me I needed a good 3 months before I was ready to do it again. Also tried pretty much everything but heroin, ketamine & PCP during my twenties (mid 80’s). Point being, I’m not much on moralizing about drugs.

    Anyways, my main point was going to be that I heard Dr. Drew (Pinsky) saying he had serious doubts about how therapeutic it might be. Then he reconsidered and said maybe if the point was to burn out certain brain functions, like some sort of a targeted chemical lobodomy… finally he followed up with the statement that even if there was a small segment who might benefit from it, the general population shouldn’t be taking it recreationally. Apparently even if users don’t “have a bad trip” from the immediate effects, there are potential problems regulating emotional states 10-20 yrs down the road for regular users.

    I can’t say for certain that’s true, but I can tell you I had one hell of a post-traumatic stress reaction a couple years back. Very, very ugly stuff. If the two events are related, the X wasn’t worth it. Be careful out there kids.

  13. I’d rather we treat all drugs as good and force drug warriors to defend the merits of banning them.

    They say all drugs are bad and we have to fight that, it’s time to put the ball back where it belongs-solely in their court.

  14. I know there is still no hard data that E is dangerous but my purely anecdotal evidence says other wise. During the pill-popping heyday of the late 90’s more than a few of my friends were munching on E like smarties leaving some despondent, emotionless zombies. This is no reason to ban the stuff but please don’t down play the strength of this drug. A morning-after shaking cold sweat might convince Jeff of this little fact.

  15. No, if we treat all drugs as good, the drug warriors get to dismiss us as druggies, and divert attention from issues of individual autonomy and the dangers of black markets.

  16. EMAIL: draime2000@yahoo.com
    URL: http://www.enlargement-for-penis.com
    DATE: 01/25/2004 07:30:07
    We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.