Ecstasy treatment draws rave reviews
(Credit:
DEA)
Psychiatrists and researchers are using a notorious party drug to treat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and are asking the Department of Veterans Affairs to expand the program.
Scientists say methylenedioxymethamphetamine produces an experience described as "inhibiting the subjective fear response to an emotional threat." Late-night rave-goers know it as Ecstasy and say it produces an intimate, euphoric groove and makes you grind your teeth.
The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies is sponsoring clinical trials to determine potential risks and benefits of using the drug as part of the psychotherapy for treating post-traumatic stress disorder.
In the process, the association may be rehabilitating a psychoactive drug that's better known for its methamphetamine-like party properties, rather than any salubrious benefits (PDF).
Psychiatrist Michael Mithoefer sought and gained FDA permission to test the drug on military veterans sufferering from post-traumatic stress, and apparently there's no lack of volunteers.
"It's basically like years of therapy in two or three hours. You can't understand it until you've experienced it," a former Army Ranger who took part in a recent study said in an interview. "It's an extremely positive thing. I feel so lucky that I got to take part in the project."
Don't expect to see drug on sale next to the glow sticks and pacifiers just yet.
"It's not going to be a normal prescription drug like the antidepressants," Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies founder Rick Doblin said in an interview with author Scott Thill. "It's only going to be administered under therapist supervision. Patients would be required to spend the night in the facility. It's not like cannabis. Our approach is catharsis, enhancing the psychotherapeutic interchange. We want patients to integrate their trauma into their normal lives."
Mark Rutherford is a West Coast-based freelance writer. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Email him at markr@milapp.com. Disclosure. 
Psychiatrists are funny sometimes.
What is so "funny" about medical doctors pursuing further testing of a drug that has already shown great promise in treating a complex medical condition? It seems very normal to me.
I've never heard of ecstasy being addictive... never heard of an x-house vs. a crackhouse and never heard of a bunch of tripping raver kids mugging, murdering and doing sexual favors just to get another hit. About the only negative thing I have heard and seen for ecstasy was the dehydration aspect... where raver kids don't drink enough water and literally dance themselves to death. I can think of worse ways to go.
That would not be a factor in occasional or one-time clinical use, but I really would not suggest to people that the only risk is dehydration.
Perhaps you should put down the X and do a little research into the pharmacokinetics of MDMA.
You can start here...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15228154
/ not to mention all of our college friends who are now successful as well
Comparing MDMA to freebase cocaine is not only idiotic, but dangerous misinformation that can only hurt those individuals who would so greatly benefit from it's therapeutic value.
WLP
Until our understanding of neurophysiology and psychiatry improve to the point that we can nail down precisely why different things work differently in different subjects, we're stuck trying multiple approaches for each person until we find what works, case by case. For you it was EMDR and that's fantastic, but you need to be more cautious about projecting your experience onto everyone else in the world.
I missed the last part of the story:
"It's only going to be administered under therapist supervision. Patients would be requited to spend the night in the facility. It's not like cannabis. Our approach is catharsis, enhancing the psychotherapeutic interchange. We want patients to integrate their trauma into their normal lives."
And assumed they were suggesting this as long-term therapy.
http://primal-page.com/grof.htm
Take some ectasy and then tell me whats so funny about peace love and understanding.
Someone without PTSD or other major emotional issues using MDMA recreationally for the euphoria is exactly what has destroyed the potential for a major revolution in PTSD therapy for the past 20 years!
this is a HORRIBLE idea. ecstacy is INCEDIBLY addictive and is in my opinion the most intense psychadelic drug experience and should NOT be taken lightly.
You don't think that a few people who go through these TRIALS and discover that they like MDMA wouldn't be able to figure out where to get it in a non-clinical setting? @SeizeCTRL - never heard of an x-house? what do you think a RAVE is?! just because there's music there, doesn't make it any different.. @amphead - abuse potential non-existent?! B.S! i had friends that were taking 5-10 pills AT A TIME before I had to CUT MYSELF OFF from that 'scene' entirely.
I'm not saying it's crack.. i'm just saying it IS addictive and the evidence of negative side effects HAS been documented. On top of that, most of the "E" you find in a non-clinical setting is mixed with WHO KNOWS WHAT... ever been to a party/rave where half the party is PUKING from some bad E? Ask anybody about Earth Dance '08 in Phoenix and countless others. @jordanofthehill - are you preaching PLUR now ? lol
It's anybody's guess what's in each pill from week to week... Sorry for my rant.. I guess my point is, "clinical use" can EASILY lead to non-clinical use which can lead to way too many glowsticks and water bottles in landfills.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not E-head, however.....
MDMA in it's modern form, like LSD, was created by the pharmacutical industry. Specifically, Merck.
It has been prescribed/used, without much incident by Psychiatrists for at least 60+ years.
After some hysteria, during the 80's, it was added to Schedule II.
Keep in mind that this was a time in American history were the majority believed that Satanic cults were as much a threat to us as the Soviet Union.
But abuse is not generally grounds for prohibition, where they dying? I'm not sure why it was added to schedule I, perhaps Regan's DEA didn't like people asking random strangers for hugs? Did the patent expire? Hypocrisy obeys no formal boundaries.
Personally, I find this highly hypocritical, after all most Americans drive cars that run on gasoline, shall we ban that because retards huff it to get high? What about Crazy glue? Which, by the way, is WAY more toxic to humans than most Schedule I drugs.
Prozac? Do some basic google searchs of modern psycotropic treatments for PTSD, depression, etc. Then take those drug names, and add "suicide+side effects"
Now, try to justify prohibiting something that could potentially help these people.
The situation will only get worse as more veterans come back from Iraq and Afganistan. Additionally, there will be a spike in PTSD, as well ascancer rates, as troops exposed to depleted uranium, unknown biological and chemical weapons, as well as just basic shellshock/ptsd/war syndrome return.
The control one ones own body has historically been the perogative of every free American, it is only a totalitarian government that imposes controls over ones self.
Of course, there is abuse potential for almost any drug, but recreational abuse and addiction is hardly comparable to the use of prescribed medicine for the treatment of a genuine medical condition. I regularly take Lorcet (like Vicodin with double the Hydrocodone) and have for the last 15 years for treatment of chronic back pain. My use varies with my pain level and sometimes I go days or weeks without a single pill and I have never experienced any symptoms of addiction or withdrawal. And still, I hear news stories all the time about other people being addicted to the stuff because they exceeded the prescribed amount, got the euphoric effect, and became addicted.
My point is, drugs are usually not addictive when used correctly under the control and guidance of a doctor for a real problem which is exactly the situation described in the article. Most people leaving a hospital after being on a Morphine drip for a week do not go out and start buying Heroin on the street, nor will these vets go out and become E addicts after being given a dose by their doctor.
www.cchr.org
Some of those troops are still friends of ours, no?
People do develop a psychological dependency on it due to its pleasurable effects, and apparently its ability to mitigate traumatic memories. One concern of mine is whether it also mitigates any other strong memories, such as ones I want to keep. A second concern is about MDMA metabolism is its potential involvement in the development of mid- to long-term neurotoxic effects as a result of progressive neurodegeneration of the serotonergic neurotransmission system. Does long-term use of ecstacy put you at significantly greater risk of developing Parkinson's Disease later on?
This, however, is after a lot of very heavy use.
Heavy dependency is, as you've so technically put it, encountered in those who already have problems that need treatment.
There was a lot of fuss in the British press recently after Jacqui Smith openly smacked down the government's chief drugs advisor for comparing the dangers of E to those of horse riding. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4537874/Ecstasy-no-more-dangerous-than-horse-riding.html
Jacqui Smith was right to smack down the drugs advisor for this idiotic statement. Statistics like this are used by kids to justify their stupid behaviour. When they hear this statement, do you think it actually occurs to them that horse riding is actually quite dangerous? And that people who ride horses all the time go to great lengths to reduce the danger - lengths which rave party organisers don't go to.
Thankyou for pointing out that it is exactly the illegality and lack of regulation which presents the danger as disinformation is presented as fact by official sources claiming remote risks as commonplace, the media is condoned in it's use of bad information to present paper-selling scare stories with little or no basis in reality (thank the scandal rags for a spate of people dying from over-hydration) and drugs which are less harmful on their own are cut with subtantially more damaging substances.
Quite apart from the dangers of horse riding being _the_point_, horse riding is an entirely legal activity with tight regulation and, as you pointed out, a great effort made to minimise the risk but despite having a death and injury rate comparable to a Class A drug there is no move being made to ban this dangerous practice. Or at least that's how a tabloid might put it.
So, when an illegal drug with zero safety regulations and additional artifically added dangers (being cut with speed and ketamine) has a safety record comparable with a highly regulated and stringently monitored legal activity it doesn't make you wonder exactly how dangerous it would be with the proper controls?
I've been on more dangerous prescriptions, ****, I'm _currently_ on a more dangerous prescription (another blood test before the end of the month).
When the government policy on treating heroin addicts is to place them on the even more addictive and substantially more harmful methadone because it's more politically expedient while countries using realistic tactics watch heroin addiction die out I'll take Jacqui Smith's reponse and file it in the little round filing cabinet that sits under my desk.
That's the difference between Jacqui Smith and her drugs advisor. He was comparing sets of numbers and going "wow look at this!". She has to form a cohesive social policy based on much more than an interesting set of figures.
People who think that the policy regarding this sort of abuse should be based purely on "relative harm" should ask themselves: what is the "relative benefit" of teens popping pills? Is there any?
I hear pot smokers all the time try to justify legalisation on the grounds that it's no worse than alcohol. To me that's incredible! Alcohol abuse causes thousands of deaths a year, represents a good portion of emergency admissions to hospital, not to mention criminal damage and assault cases before the courts - Yet somehow, a pot smoker will happily stand there and say that pot should be legal because "it's no worse than that"
By your logic, no-one should ever put up a high shelf because of the risk of using a stepladder (most accidents occur in the home, right?).
Nothing is without risk and I guarantee that you do substantially more risky things every day. You drive a car? Have you seen the accident death statistics? You know something's dangerous when they stop quoting numbers and get into statistics.
But then, you're arguing from the perspective that someone doing something that they enjoy has no value as though there were no need to take into consideration basic human psychological needs.
You've also ignored the main point which is that _every_ risk you have stated is a direct result of its current legal status.
Where's your horse riding learners permit?!?!?!
Do you have to get tags for your horse?
Where do you stick them?
These crazy city folk.....
Now, in case you didn't notice, I ain't talking about Montana law. Maybe you can look up UK law regarding riding a horse on a public highway sometime Cap'n Smartarse. This isn't actually the 51st State, it's got a separate government and everything.
- by libertyforall1776 March 9, 2009 2:02 PM PDT
- Sugar is very addictive for many, and sugar, yes SUGAR, is the most basic drug out there! Addiction has more to do with personality traits and genetic predisposition than a drug itself, IMHO. We better ban sugar, and require overnight stays until it leaves your system -- the mood elevation may be too much for some to handle. Wait, it is, hence diabetes...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(38 Comments)I agree with another poster that it is immoral for government to legislate what goes into *our* bodies, for if they can do that, they can do the same for foods, drinks, vitamins and supplements, etc.
Google "Campaign for Liberty"...