Ecstasy is Awesome!

---

The first link that you cited, a 2002 Washington Post article, which I assume was supposed to be anti-Ecstasy, started out:

In reply to:

---

On Ecstasy, Consensus Is Elusive
Study Suggesting Risk of Brain Damage Questioned by Critics of Methodology

---

I remember the studies, which claimed that even one dose of MDMA could cause Parkinson's symptoms, but it turned out that what they were using in their tests was contaminated with toxic levels of methamphetamine, which apparently caused the brain damage.

What concerns me about ecstasy is the terrible crash after the initial effects wear off. It can lead to a deep depression.

In reply to: What concerns me about ecstasy is the terrible crash after the initial effects wear off. It can lead to a deep depression. Mmmhmm! And, after hitting depression, they would turn to different drugs, like, weed, to get them out of depression. Apprently, weed is to do that?Thus, they lead themselves into a Drug Addiction!

> And, after hitting depression, they would turn to different drugs, like, weed, to get them out of depression.

Wouldn't the same thing apply to anyone who's depressed, whether or not it was caused by crashing after taking a drug? Whatever you might say about ecstasy, I don't think that trying it will turn many people into raging drug addicts.

what i dont get is why soemone would want to do it in the first place. there is no health benifits, the only thing you get is a "high" for a few hours, followed by a crashing depression and you feel like shit for a long time after that

you get ... a "high" for a few hoursBingo.

sigh soem people jsut dont realise that that high just isnt worth it, you want a high? go have sex, if you wear a condom and she's on birth control the chance of you slowly dienign is next to nil. do drugs, you fry your brain, and basically ruin your life

Life is not so simple, and not everything is cut-and-dried. I've never tried ecstasy and I wouldn't (which is saying something, considering where I live), but taking a drag on a joint is not going to fry anyone's brain. The problem is that some people take pro- and anti-drug positions as if they're defending a religion.People who try a drug and see that the world doesn't come crashing down, and then they tend not to believe anything about the danger of drugs. The over-the-top propaganda just destroys trust.There are a lot of good reasons not to do drugs, especially for people whose brains are still forming (which goes on into the 20's). Being informed, realistic, and honest about drugs is the best policy.

well, my position is that i dont need them, dont want them.

I'd like to thank Champion here for outlining the risks and effects of drug use, because I just think that if you're narrow minded enough to only see the high that you get, and not see the damage that it does, it makes you stupid, not cool, not awesome, but a complete and utter idiot. Obviously, there are situations where a person first takes drugs before knowing all the implications and repercussions of taking them, then that's different (kind of), however that's most likely impossible now with all of the media and schools educating people about them.....Recap: ALL DRUGS ARE BAD FOR YOU (not prescribed)!!! Please don't take them.

And it's just as narrow-minded to take the "all drugs will make you raging addicts or kill you" tack. We need to give honest information, or teens will see right through the BS. There are a lot of good, reason-based reasons not to take drugs like ecstasy, and there are some prescribed drugs that are not so good. We just need to keep it real.

Amen!

They're narrowminded, but you're nto because all drugs are bad for you. Well so is air-conditioning, you still use it don't you? Fool.

Air conditioning is harmful...how very abstract.Anyways, from the point of view of someone who works with prisoners (BTW, 86% of inmates were using when they committed their crime) I can tell you that MOST non-persciption drugs are very harmful, and those that aren't totally leathal, are spotty at best.The worst ones (according to behavioural, psychological, and physically damaging properties) are: Heroin, coke, and meth (Ecstacy) I've seen guys who've detoxed, yet still have the negative effects of the drugs they used.IE: There is this one guy who took E, and now suffers from extreme anxiety (To the point where he vomits, shakes, loses bowel control, wails, etc) Yea, ecstacy is real fun; a few bits of hollow entertainment in exchange for a lifetime of suffering.

I agree that that stuff can be very bad, but I don't agree with your analysis, or the jaundiced view you've gotten from dealing with a prison population. Probably 100% of them habitually drink water, and I'll bet most of them have eaten a lot of hamburgers.

The big problem with a lot of drugs is that it's hard to say, a priori, how an individual will react, and by the time a person find out that he doesn't react well (either physically or psychologically), he may already be quite screwed up.

Heroin isn't a problem for the same reason that Ecstasy is a problem, beyond the fact that they can both be habituating or habit-forming.

In any case, in my opinion, it's better to offer up objective information, although personal experiences are useful to share (as HelmsmaN does).

I think we can both agree that just avoiding all that stuff would be the best course of action, but most people, especially teens, won't listen to a simple-minded "Just say no" message. (As an alternative to sex education in the U.S., for instance, it has been a resounding failure. The same goes for just-say-no anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns. Teens just mock it.)

I've been trying to offer from personal experiences as well.. at least as best I can.But I can say from personal experiences, that "Just say No" shit does not work most of the time. I mean, it's the same thing as telling a child "Don't go in the basement, it's dangerous" What do you think the first thing that kid's going to do when he thinks he can get away with it?All the anti-drug anti-smoke campaigns actually make it more appealing ... it makes peoople think what's all the hype about, I wanna know so they try it ...Yeah, it's better than not having these campaigns at all, but it's a lose-lose situation

Yes, I agree. Given all the crap that advertising agencies can sell to the public, you'd think they'd be able to come up with a campaign that would be effective against things like smoking. Actually, with some of the money won from cigarette companies from the settlement a few years ago (because they were obviously agressively marketing cigarettes to children), some reasonably effective ad campaigns have been done. The ads the cigarette companies are running to try to stop teens from smoking are ineffective at best, and may actually encourage teens to smoke. I'm sure they are well aware of that.At the end of the day, money talks.

I always love to hear Philip Morris offer you websites and hotlines to quit smoking... oh, the irony

Only because they HAD to! or face many more millions in fines!!

They're clever enough at marketing to put up commercials that make people think that they're trying to do something, yet that they know are ineffective, or are counterproductive.

hmm, maybe I should go look at em...as a smoker, trying (wishing) to quit the nicotene addiction....that is one place admittedly I DIDN"T go searching for help.Wonder how much smoke I can handle up my ass? eh?