The Return of MDMA
Some doctors are itching to prescribe ecstasy again. How do we avoid the regulatory mistakes of the '80s?

I Feel Love MDMA and the Quest for Connection in a Fractured World, by Rachel Nuwer, Bloomsbury, 384 page, $28.99
In 2006 a Florida man named Zulfi Riza reached out to Rick Doblin, the founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). Riza was suicidal. He was suffering from PTSD, anxiety, depression, and anger issues. He had tried countless remedies, and he felt that Doblin was his last hope. Riza had heard that an underground network of psychiatrists practiced therapy using the illegal drug MDMA, better known as ecstasy or molly. And Doblin knew of such a therapist.
But Riza also suffered seizures. Should a medical emergency take place during a session, the therapist would be exposed and could lose their license, or worse.
Doblin told him he couldn't help. Riza killed himself the very same morning.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had unilaterally outlawed MDMA in 1985 under emergency powers granted to it by Congress. To back up the ban, the agency cited flimsy evidence about MDA, another drug entirely. It was a catastrophic case of government overreach. Zulfi Riza was just one of many people whose lives may have been saved had they not been forced to seek help in secret.
The DEA isn't the only villain in this story. In 2002, a senator from Delaware named Joe Biden proposed the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act. This eventually passed, in somewhat watered-down form, as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. It basically made party organizers liable for drugs consumed on the premises. This made it much more complicated to organize services such as testing partygoers' drugs for dangerous ingredients, as it would implicitly admit there was drug-taking on-site.
At a time when Americans are dying in record numbers from accidentally ingesting substances such as fentanyl, a de facto ban on drug checking in places where Americans take drugs—clubs, festivals—seems especially criminal.
Now that the war on weed is all but lost—federal legalization of marijuana feels like a matter of when, not if—the next battlefront will be over MDMA and other psychedelics. This year Australia allowed licensed therapists to give patients the drug. (It did the same as well for magic mushrooms.) Meanwhile, the Biden administration expects MDMA and psilocybin to be approved therapeutically within the next few years.
Rachel Nuwer's book I Feel Love arrives just in time for the debate. It exhaustively chronicles MDMA's journey from a therapeutic tool to an underground party pill and back to therapy. Although many drug books dwell on the criminal element—killer kingpins, sophisticated smugglers—Nuwer, a respected science journalist, mostly prefers to explore the positive potential of ecstasy and the forces, such as MAPS, seeking to unleash it.
As illicit narcotics go, ecstasy is relatively benign. It does not, as an infamous episode of Oprah suggested, turn your brain into Swiss cheese. Instead, it floods you with an overwhelming sense of love, joy, and empathy—the kind of feeling you get, as Nuwer puts it, "if you were suddenly reunited with a good friend that you hadn't seen in years, and you stayed up all night talking because you were so happy to see each other."
It's precisely these properties that make MDMA such a useful tool for addressing trauma, anxiety, and other mental health issues. Since it's virtually impossible to feel bad while on it, patients can dive deep into traumatic events without being overcome with emotions, and open up to their therapists about things they'd normally keep bottled up.
But as any seasoned tripper will tell you, it's not just the drugs; it's how and where you use them—the set and setting. Someone undergoing MDMA-assisted therapy will get support and guidance from trained professionals. Likewise, someone spending all night pumping his fist in the air at a warehouse party in Brooklyn is unlikely to walk away with any psychological breakthroughs.
Rick Doblin's quest to legalize ecstasy features prominently in the book. Doblin has been fascinated with psychedelics ever since his time studying at New College in Florida, in those days an open-minded institution where students took acid and hung around a clothes-free swimming pool. When the DEA announced its intent to outlaw ecstasy in 1984, Doblin led the counterattack, rallying lawyers, shrinks, and scientists. When that failed and the ban was soon to go into effect, Doblin sold ecstasy pills that had been donated by one of the drug's first kingpins, Michael Clegg, to fund experiments on rats and dogs. Doblin then enrolled at Harvard and interned at the White House to become an insider in government policy.
MAPS has been behind several promising studies showing MDMA's potential in treating combat veterans, sexual assault survivors, and others. Less happily, Doblin and MAPS have been criticised recently for how they handled a sexual abuse case during one of their clinical trials. While creepy therapists are hardly unique to psychedelics, tossing mind-altering chemicals into the mix leaves patients particularly vulnerable. Doblin also has a reputation as a psychedelic evangelist who sometimes gets ahead of himself, which has hurt the cause at times. To her credit, Nuwer doesn't shy away from Doblin's flaws, which will likely get more attention as the debate around psychedelics heats up.
Although Nuwer does an excellent job of breaking down the scientific studies of ecstasy and how exactly it works on the brain, there are still gaps in the research. Some experts have questioned whether enough is known about those for whom MDMA-assisted therapy doesn't work. Could it actually make things worse? Certainly, there are accounts of patients feeling suicidal after a session, a point which Nuwer perhaps covers a little too briefly.
Still, most people aren't taking ecstasy in a clinical setting to cope with survivor's guilt after surviving an IED blast in Fallujah. They're doing it to let loose at boisterous jamborees like Coachella and Burning Man. Nuwer feels no shame describing herself rolling on molly at house parties.
As for ecstasy's alleged dangers: Millions of people have taken the drug since the late '80s, but there hasn't been a corresponding epidemic of brain damage. An infamous study that seemed to show that it caused brain damage in monkeys turned out to be bogus after it was discovered the monkeys had been injected not with molly but with meth.
That isn't to say ecstasy is harmless. Nothing is—even caffeine can kill you in heroic doses. But most of the drug's dangers exist precisely because of the DEA's decision to ban it all those years ago. Nuwer tells the story of Martha Fernback, a 15-year-old English schoolgirl who died in 2013 after swallowing half a gram of 91 percent pure MDMA powder. Like almost everyone else who wants to feel the euphoric bliss of molly, she purchased her gear from an underground pusher, not a licensed pharmacist. She had no idea what dose she was taking, or even if it contained MDMA at all.
Imagine if we played the same stupid games with liquor or beer. Actually, you don't have to imagine. Certain parts of the world have banned booze, so the people there aren't sipping fine wine; they're drinking moonshine or bathtub hooch. Many of them then go blind or die. Rather than crusade against the evils of drugs, Martha's mother joined a campaign called Anyone's Child, calling for a reform of British laws and the legalization of ecstasy.
The ancient Greeks had a word, pharmakon, that can mean either "poison" or "medicine." It's too bad we can't always tell which is which.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How do we avoid the regulatory mistakes of the ’80s? By making new but different regulatory mistakes of the 2020s!
Let's start with long legalize regulations, numerous and nonsensical regulation that no one can read let alone understand and attach huge penalties to anyone that fails in anyway to not follow the regulations to the last dotted I and crossed T.
But without voluminous regulations, there's no need for massive bureaucracy, and we can't have that, can we?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
"We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, Gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph"
https://youtu.be/bpJNmkB36nE
Health matters are the most highly government-regulated major field worldwide these days, so it’s unrealistic to contemplate deep deregulation there. The meme that it must be regulated is too strongly and widely embedded to uproot, but it can be trimmed and shaped.
The chief issue is the thrust of the regulation. Is it based more on hope or fear? Does it put much stock in the ability of people to choose (and rightness of their choosing) among things they can reasonably be expected to know about, or does it lean more toward the idea of either the Devil or unscrupulous businesspeople being expected to lead consumers astray?
You left out regulatory capture and government-business collusion. I will be more bad regulation, and just total regulation, comes from these factors.
Many people are not aware that the federal government added methanol to industrial alcohol (ethanol) in amounts sufficient to cause methanol toxicity to drinkers (damn lawbreakers shouldn'a
been drinkin' that industrial alcohol - stupid bastids deserve blindness, jake-leg, or death). This is not "conspiracy theory" gentle readers - that's fact and can be verified by skeptics.
Understanding this, I have to ask whether various forbidden substances crossing the border contaminated with fentanyl in lethal amounts is really regarded by our rulers as a bug, or is perhaps rather considered to be a feature? [Another case of them damn lawbreakers shouldn'a been takin' them pills - stupid bastids deserve zonin' out and dyin'?]
And even reasonable people wonder if the fentanyl fatalities represent individual failures of "the Darwin test". How stupid do you have to be to decide to eat something you know nothing about the background or contents off when you also know or should know about the fentanyl booger-bear.
Yes, many prohibitionists do regard making drugs more dangerous as a benefit. Some actually seem to believe it's possible to scare people away from taking drugs. The historical record suggests that any such effect will be marginal at best, but that's not stopping them now any more than it did before. Others do subscribe to the "serves 'em right" theory. These are the ones who actively oppose any and all efforts at harm reduction.
I am especially happy that I can now buy bags of compost from Amazon and psilocybin spores online to grow my own.
Weed and shrooms are plants. I can grow them myself so I know what I'm ingesting. All of the lab shit never comes any supply chain guarantees on the gray or black market. I've done my share of it, but would prefer to be able to buy shit like I am buying cannabis now: Lab data printed on the side. Will I pay extra for that? Yes, when it comes to extracts that aren't in plant form anymore.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
So are gardeners with indoor composters at risk for the Drug Warrior Jackboots, even if they are uninterested in drugs?
Well, "expert" cops have been known to confuse tomato plants and used tea leaves with the demon weed. And merely carrying cash is inherently suspicious. So yeah, compost probably constitutes probable cause for the door-kickers at this point.
My only issue with Ecstasy is that you're at a party and a sexy girl on it drapes herself over you - and she's just interested in being cuddled and utterly uninterested in sex.
So Ecstasy is a non-Viagra way to give 4-hour erections and blue balls?
🙂
Linda like a gay Trumpanzee eager to get you to agree in the Reason comments to vote for the Don and Grabbers Of Pussy ticket? Like that? So... then what?
Trump likely has very little to do with SRGs inability to get laid, hank, but too many drugs likely has a lot to do with your inability to form a coherent thought.
Might wanna, you know, cut back a little…
"Doblin told him he couldn't help. Riza killed himself the very same morning."
Still not as progressive as the Canadian system, where the doctor would encourage suicide.
"it's virtually impossible to feel bad while on [MDMA]" That isn't really accurate. I underwent MDMA therapy myself, and wrestled with some pretty difficult and painful emotions while on it -- facing down the dragon, so to speak. Feeling erased as a person as I re-experienced an assault from my youth. Feeling worthless as I re-experienced years of hatred directed at me.
Yet somehow the MDMA gave me the strength to endure the dragon's blasts, and when the smoke cleared I was still standing. That was sandwiched between periods of warm feelings of love and connection that made the whole thing easier to take. I felt like I had been through the wringer when I was through, but it was very cathartic. I came away feeling much more confident in myself.
Legalize it and sell it over the counter, along with all the other drugs. Just check ID to make sure the buyer is 18+.
Crime would drop and "overdose" deaths would drop. How many gangland shootings are caused by alcohol distributors these days? And companies selling tainted product could be sued into oblivion.
Medicine and psychiatry are still mostly experienced-based quasi-science, especially psychiatry. The entire history of the human race has been a chronicle of trial and error punctuated by positive breakthroughs and major disasters. There has never been a single major step forward that wasn't accompanied by at least some unintended consequences, many of them significant downsides. Humans are frequently their own worst enemies, especially the humans who seek to control others with good intentions or from a love of power. MDMA is a microcosm of that global experience, touching all the bases. If we could just prevent the control freaks from gaining power through religion and government, the world would be a much better place for almost all of us ... but everyone reading Reason already knew that whether they admit it or not.
The Return of MDMA
Some doctors are itching to prescribe ecstacy again. How do we avoid the regulatory mistakes of the '80s?
Are the Doctors on Meth?
Just coke-up. But they can totally handle it.
Φαρμάκων doesn't mean poison, or medicine.
It's a medical bag or first aid kit.
From Greek or Cyrrillic, Pharmacos is indeed distinguishable. Another Reason vid abt senile prohibitionist geezer lawmakers completely misses a point relevant here. MMDA (3-methoxy-4,5-methylenedioxyamphetamine; 5-methoxy-MDA) is an ethical and beneficial psychedelic, tarbrushed by mystical looters in the 1960s for purposes of legalizing robbery and murder by government agents. Veterans of that era are surprised to learn that MDMA isn't all that different. Is there no lie so brazen and obvious that even jackbooted minions of the looter Kleptocracy blush at its recital as pretext?
About time. It's a great drug that has little side effects, compared to weed who makes you really boring and smelly
Ah yes... "weed who makes you.." These Trumpanzee trollobotz are coded by: a) winos b) glue sniffers c) gasoline sniffers d) snuff mainliners e) teetotalitarian abstainers for Jesus... Which?
I think you should be able to stuff yourself to the gills with any drug you want... provided I don't have to pay for your healthcare costs.
But right now, I do have to pay for your healthcare expenses, and along with that, we have an FDA approval process. That approval process takes time, but you'll just have to deal with it.
MDMA will likely be approved for PTSD treatment this year. If there are other applications it is good for, the clinical studies need to be done and then it needs to get approved.
So, either give us free market medicine and no regulations, or socialized medicine (like we have) and regulations. Socialized medicine and no regulations is not a viable combination.
Yes, by all means the perfect should always be the enemy of the good. Legalization would most likely reduce healthcare costs related to drug use. Much of the damage associated with drugs is due to contamination, unpredictable doses and mislabeling. Letting people buy MDMA (or heroin or cocaine or whatever) made in an industrial lab where they take things like purity and consistent dosing seriously would drastically reduce the risks. Sure, some people would still manage to fuck themselves up, but it's not like prohibition is preventing that now.
I am sympathetic, but when some totally different author is injected with a comment on "ecstasy as an illicit narcotic" one has to wonder what brand of airplane glue Reason is sniffing. Ambrose Bierce poked fun at WCTU harridans calling wine "liquor" before 1910! Since then all manner of mystical fanatics have equivocated non-habit-forming stimulants into "narcotics," i.e. soporifics, downers, despite the definition being the opposite. Continued lying inspires only dismissal as faith-based counterfactual ravings reminiscent of Anslinger's "reefer madness" mendacities. Surely we get enough of that elsewhere, no?
They're using "narcotic" in the legal sense, not the pharmaceutical.
A relevant question is "how much of GNP do illegal substances aggregate?" Answering THAT would provide investors with information as to how new superstitious enactments might affect stocks, mortgage-based derivatives and fractional-reserve banking systems in terms of flash crashes and sudden liquidity crises. But no... Here is a victim of prohibitionism, clueless as to real-world damage caused by the initiation of force in furtherance of ignorant superstition, totally missing an opportunity to understand how Hoovervilles result from faith-based prohibitionist sumptuary legislation.
Lol. Rock on, hank. Wow.
Repeal, decriminalization... not legalization. Revisit libertarian Ridebarb comix!
>>Rick Doblin's quest to legalize ecstasy features prominently in the book.
I listened to this dude a couple of different podcasts about this and I agree. and I'm on record several times here about world peace breaking out if mdma was legal and widely used.
When I was in a bad mood, I was advised to try mushroom supplements, in particular chocolate with magic mushrooms, to get rid of a bad mood. However, the mushroom products that I buy on the this site, read more, that I started ordering help me relax. and eliminate stress from my life. It's better than smoking all sorts of rubbish.
How do we avoid the regulatory mistakes of the '80s?
Q- How do we avoid the regulatory mistakes of the '80s?
A- We take away the right of pigs and prosecutors to ruin lives and pretend they're heroes for it.
ALSO: we need to stop letting private prison corporations and prison guard unions donate to politicians. We've been allowing that and all we got in return is Resident Joke Bitem's 1984, 1986, 1988, 1994 and 2003 drug war laws, and hundreds of thousands of drug war victims.
Hh