> But none of those drugs will result in the long-term change that you’re looking for
I mean, it literally did, and I stated as such.
Obviously the drug itself was not enough. The scenario and the realization afterword also mattered. But without mdma my life would likely have been very different.
Also, unlike cocaine etc. mdma isn’t addictive - taking more and more of it just results in you feeling shittier for longer.
I can't tell if this is sarcastic. Marijuana is both a "schedule 1 controlled substance" (which is a federal classification) and fully legal in 18 states. The term "schedule 1" doesn't say much about danger, which is not to say that there aren't dangerous drugs on the schedule 1 list.
This isn’t a very good argument. Table salt is literally Sodium and Chlorine, both of which are extremely toxic to humans but that’s irrelevant to anyone who understands that molecules have different effects than other molecules that share part of the same name.
Again though, mdma can kill you even if it’s completely pure. This is especially true if you take MAOIs or drink not enough/too much water or take any other meds that mess with serotonin. Please research things carefully.
The core molecule is amphetamine. Everything else is a binder that determines how long and how many passes it takes for your system. Adderall and methamphetamine only differ by a methyl group which makes it break down slower.
Sorry, no. MDMA is not the same as meth. The molecules are similar, sure, but they are different substances with different effects. Trying to equate the two is pretty disingenuous.
US drug scheduling is incredibly political and does not reflect how harmful a drug is.
As an example, cocaine is a schedule 2 drug but magic mushrooms, which has the lowest potential for harm (even lower than caffeine), is a schedule 1 drug.
Ecstasy is meth dude, it ruins a lot of peoples lives. I’ve seen it happen so maybe you’re personally responsible but there’s a lot of freaking people that aren’t. You can destroy their lies if they try your advice and it doesn’t work out
Ecstasy(MDMA) was like magic for the first time. It certainly should be taken only on special occasions but having molly with your loved one is beautiful experience.
> Do you think MDMA just breaks down completely devoid of methamphetamine as a metabolite?
AFAICT, that is correct; why do you think it doesn't? Name-based intuition?
Every reference, paper, etc., I can find of MDMA metabolites does not identify N-methylamphetamine (“methamphetamine”) as a metabolite of MDMA, and every identified metabolite retains the two oxygens of the methylenedioxy unit (whether it retains the whole unit or not) that distinguishes MDMA from methamphetamine.
Meth will most likely ruin your life and you will want more and more.
MDMA is simply not very fun if you try taking it over and over again. It stops working and you just feel shitty for longer and longer periods without any feeling of getting high.
The problem is that a lot of molly that is sold today is full of things other than mdma. Meth is one of those things. You should absolutely use a test kit if you plan on taking anything.
> But none of those drugs will result in the long-term change that you’re looking for.
Grandparent states: “and then realized that if I could do that with a drug then I could probably do it without a drug. (I haven’t done e in over a decade).”
I don’t think taking MDMA is a prerequisite to realizing that you can become a different person.
If one is to take drugs for that purpose, LCD or mushrooms would be much better - insofar as safely realizing that your day to day cognition is not as static as you might assume.
I think you're ending up splitting hairs here, starting out by initially (apparently) saying drugs should be avoided, but then coming around to the position that LSD or mushrooms would be much better than MDMA, even though plenty of others would warn people off LSD and mushrooms in just the same way as you've done with MDMA.
It's tricky talking about drugs that are illegal and that can be harmful, but can also be highly beneficial and safe when taken under the right conditions. Let's try to avoid blanket condemnations and moralising; HN is meant to be a place for more nuanced discussions than that.
MDMA has for several decades been widely reported, anecdotally, to bring about profound, lasting, changes in people's emotional states, and to set them on long-term journeys of personal growth. And in recent years many governments around the world have green-lit medical trials into its benefits for various kinds of emotional/psychiatric conditions, though of course few people have access to these trials.
So, let's not be so dismissive of someone being open enough to share their personal experience.
I’ve taken both lsd and mushrooms (the latter were perfectly legal in the UK and were openly sold in London high street stores). Both were interesting but neither helped in the same way.
There's active research suggesting that taking MDMA re-opens "critical period" learning where you lay down reward circuitry relating to the value of social interaction. It's potentially a way to have a do-over of important developmental social experiences. Apparently more than a party drug!
> But none of those drugs will result in the long-term change that you’re looking for.
Sorry to be blunt, but this is clearly the morally infused cliché of "healthy people do not take drugs because drugs are bad mkay.". Cliché which seem to automatically give people the status of the most responsible person in the room for some reason.
Well I'd like to give a rebuttal. Saying no to drugs is saying no to the risk of taking the drug, that is true. But it is _also_ saying no to the potential benefit.
If, for the sake of argument, someone took that risk at 20, but had some incredible epiphany and radically changed their life for the better during the 30 years following the experiment, you can't say in good faith that it was _bad_. You _have_ to take into account that a better quality of life was exchanged for that risk. And in my opinion, refusing to see that is not automatically the responsible position, even if it is always portrayed as such.
I’m in my early forties. I have bipolar disorder bad enough that I’ve seen the inside of a locked psychiatric unit more than once. (I’m also an ex-FAANG staff engineer with multiple degrees and have helped make things worth many billions of dollars if you need a second label to offset the first).
If mdma hadn’t helped me connect with people and get over my social anxiety, I would have killed myself by now and you simply would not be reading these words.
I am more aware of the costs of drug misuse than 99.98% of the people reading this but, still, I don’t think I’d be alive today without first fixing the problem of being so terribly unable to talk to people.
Surely not, drugs are bad or so i've been told and I _never_ question what people have told me. Especially when I trust them because if I trust them then they are right by definition because I only trust people who are right.
And if you read that without noticing the sarcasm then just stay away from drugs.
Downvoting because if you're including MDMA/Ecstasy in the same group with these other substances you mentioned then you have no idea what you're talking about. At all.
Just a motherfucking second right there. I can vouch that for a minority of the population properly prescribed "strong" stimulants make a night-and-day difference in social ability. For me, it meant reading "cues" which I flat out could not do practically ever, became second nature. And I learned social skills that served me even after the beautiful molecules were out of my system.
So in my particular case, these stimulants stretch out time. Literally. Like I think they improve the refractory period of my neurons, von Neumann talks about that in his book The Computer and the Brain, call it what you want, but I'll sit there thinking it's been over three hours since I sat down when it's only been an hour and fifty minutes. Guess what? You get twice as much time to figure out what to say and do in every single situation! Like the difference between chat rooms and telephone, almost. And there's much more to it than just the time dilation.
Pretty cheap lottery ticket if you ask me, just go to a real psych and ask, OK ask like this:
I am an awkward guy, and I want to screen whether I have Adult Attention Deficit Disorder, because if I do happen to have that hand tied behind my back, I would like to untie it. Just tell me conclusively whether I have ADD--which is unlikely, but worth the odds--or not. It's just I've heard it's such a slam-dunk to treat this, from people who openly talk about their ADD, that I want to get to the bottom of this, conclusively.
Agreed most heartily. I have sampled a whole range of stimulants from the mundane to the dangerous with good results. And other drugs too. Opium is fabulous. Psychedelics are deeply educational. I only wish I was introduced earlier.
