Ecstasy on the Rise...What's your take? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Check out the ABC documentary HERE

---

I got into this thread a few months ago to talk about the general topic of ecstasy and drug illegality, but I did not take 43 minutes to watch the video first. However, just then I did. I watched the entire video. I think I am more baffled than ever over the U.S. government's drug policies and, even more than that, the propaganda they use in conjunction with them. There is no doubt that the government made up some off the wall insanity about ecstasy. I suspected it all along, but now I am convinced of it. They got some scientist to make claims so outrageous they would make me fall out of my chair laughing if the situation were not so disturbing. When called out on it, he claimed he accidentally used meth in his study. What??????? The guy refused to be interviewed about it.

I am almost speechless. I can't believe this shit. I have majorly disagreed with the war on drugs my entire life, and I always knew the government exaggerated and showed strange biases with it, but I did not realize just how big many of their whoppers are. This is one of the most outrageous things I have ever come across.

Man, I just watched this. This is like... the worst. This is worse to watch than 2girls1cup. I mean, I can understand why you would take a dump in a cup and share this with your partner only to vomit into each other's mouth, if that's what turns you on. But why would you ban MDMA?

Governments are so fucked up. They seem to attract mostly just incompetent assholes and idiots. All the decent people are out there enjoying life instead of trying to impose their shitty agenda on society. Fuck. Governments need to be way smaller.

The worst is that the United Nations endorse this sort of nonsense, so basically I can't go anywhere in the world to just do whatever the fuck I want and enjoy life. Damn monopolists. The United Nations are a sack of shit. (I'm just kidding)

I just finished watching this and I have to say that it was the best news report I have ever seen. It was so informing, intelligent. I weel properly educated; empowered with knowledge. This is what journalism needs to be like, I weep for the what the media could be.

Drugs like MDMA when used sensibly can help strengthen relationships, this is something I have personal experience of. One night on MDMA with your best mates is worth months spent sober, stoned or pissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Good point.

-

Never done Ecstasy. Personally, I really don't see why it is mostly used at parties with crappy music. If I would ever do it, I would do it in a peaceful place, with some decent music. Research also show it isn't all that harmful, nor addictive. (That doesn't change the facts that there are idiots that take to much to often.)

I'll watch the docu some other day. DAMN YOU BBC, for making so many good/interesting documentaries.

---

Crappy music as in trance/techno? If you listen to it while on methyldioxmethaphetamine(ecstasy) you can feel the sounds, the highs and the lows if you close your eyes you can feel the music envelop your body.. All sorts of music are stimulating, but trance music in general has a different feel that makes you orgasmic while on them.

Their are idiots that eat too much food, people can't be stopped from over-consumption till they solve some inner problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seeker

I'm sorry, that will accomplish nothing. Durg=one_thing, LD=something_else.

Discussion of the documentary is one thing. When people begin posting about their experiences as has already been done in this thread, then the thread will e locked or deleted.

It is my wish along with that of the rest of admin team that drug discussion be taken elsewhere. There are plenty of sites on the internet that welcome that type of discussion.

No, I'm not a drug-o-phobe as some have hinted at already. I am however unwilling to accept the potential liability that comes from encouraging drug experimentatiobn and use on a forum that is open to members below the age of 18.

All it takes is one parent who's kid gets messed up after following a suggestion found here and we are gone.

---

Suggestion. Add a Drug sub forum that only 18 + have access and have some sort of agreement page that you must accept to access that page. That the following is not the views of the admins or the forums and any discussion is merely for academia and experience. Please do not try anything discussed, etc.. (I'm sure you can find a better way to word it..)

My only beef lies with dealers of ecstasy, not MDMA itself.

I don't use it any more, mainly for that reason [although there are others].

Because of the way ecstasy is advertised [being that it is restricted the black market, I mean], it makes it easy for someone without any common sense to take whatever a dealer puts in their hands. Eat it is the motto, know about what your eating is sometimes not even an afterthough. And that's where I think things go wrong.

Granted, that's the users fault for not being educated, but it's also the dealers fault for not being honest.

As with a number of other drugs [but not all], there is potential for MDMA to be beneficial, in my humble opinion. However, there is a large window for risk involved in ecstasy as well [like most drugs].

Personally, I wish there were still a testing center available. I look at it the same way I look at abstinence; if it's known that people will put themselves at risk over something despite the possible consequences, the least that can be done is provide accurate information to those who insist on taking said risk.

Keep in mind, in saying this I don't judge anyone who takes it, I'm just putting in my two cents.

What is the actual motivation for governments prohibiting drug use?

I feel like that's a multi-faceted question...

For starters it's a form of entertainment/education that they receive no benefits from.
Also it promotes a general worldview that does not support governmental authority, in most cases [because drug-use by definition disregards such authority].
It also provides a useful scapegoat for the government; one in which they can assume moral authority over, and also find a multi-demographic enemy with which people can relate to.

There are more, but I suppose those are the first three that spring to mind.

What do you mean by recieve no benefits? If it were legal they could tax it...

I would guess that actually the majority of voters have used drugs at some point.

Good ideas though. I asked the question because I really have no clue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What do you mean by recieve no benefits? If it were legal they could tax it...

---

But it's not. So at this point they don't. That second sentence hit it on the head.

Unless you count the fact that certain civil-service authority organizations receive/spend tons of money on "fighting" drugs.

Which is a matter of perspective, I suppose.

Uh think about it for a bit. The question is 'why do governments make it illegal'.

The answer isn't 'because they can't tax it because it's illegal because they can't tax it because it's illegal because'...

If it were legal, which is whole point of the question, they could tax it, so there's an incentive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh think about it for a bit. The question is 'why do governments make it illegal'.

The answer isn't 'because they can't tax it because it's illegal because they can't tax it because it's illegal because'...

If it were legal, which is whole point of the question, they could tax it, so there's an incentive.

---

I'd say there's only psychological reasons at this point. Like inground societal bias against marijuana. Also, a lot of folk think drug use and drug-related crime would go up if legalized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh think about it for a bit. The question is 'why do governments make it illegal'.

The answer isn't 'because they can't tax it because it's illegal because they can't tax it because it's illegal because'...

If it were legal, which is whole point of the question, they could tax it, so there's an incentive.

---

I'm sorry, it appears I misunderstood/incorrectly answered your question. Oops. Please disregard what I said there; I hope I wouldn't give an answer using such poor reasoning unless I missed something.

You're definately correct, there are quite a few incentives to legalizing many drugs. So why persist on keeping it illegal, is what you're asking?

You know, that's a damn good question. One I wish I had an answer to myself.

I knew Cyclic was a drug-head

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh think about it for a bit. The question is 'why do governments make it illegal'.

The answer isn't 'because they can't tax it because it's illegal because they can't tax it because it's illegal because'...

If it were legal, which is whole point of the question, they could tax it, so there's an incentive.

---

The answer? To appear "tough on crime." If there are three words more corrosive to a free society, I don't know what they are. All it takes is one parent to spearhead a movement to outlaw drug X because it lead their previously golden child into a deviant lifestyle consistent with the criminal element, and the politicians will line up at their door, with the AARP and The 700 Club trailing behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I knew Cyclic was a drug-head

~

---

Pretty ignorant and arrogant of you.

Even though acatelophobic misunderstood your question "It also provides a useful scapegoat for the government; one in which they can assume moral authority over, and also find a multi-demographic enemy with which people can relate to."
That sums it up.
It was started for monetary reasons. Hemp = awesome paper, clothing, rope etc. crop. Forests = quick, destructive, but very profitable paper. I'm sure you know the story by now. But to sum up quickly, William Randolph Herst was a "yellow journalist" (meaning he printed outright lies, just off the top of his head, to sell papers and his own opinion). He owned a newspaper company and they used tree paper, Hemp was taking off because some Hemp farmers invented the decorticator, which made Hemp farming profitable. Hearst didn't like this so he printed bullshit stories about "blacks smoking this drug Marihuana and raping white women", "people going crazy after one hit" etc. You know all the Reefer Madness stories.
The Gov banned it without realising they were also banning Hemp.

So that's the REAL reason. Money. It was covered up as racism because of the fears of that time (1930's).

Now though, it is because the government has something they can appeal to every demographic on. Except for young kids now, which are progressively loving drugs and/or hating the government and their drug war.
But with everyone besides this generation of kids (who get reliable information on the internet, untainted by government bullshit), being "tough on drugs" wins instant votes.

Also they can say that "oh all this murder, rape and theft isn't OUR fault, it's all these drugs!"
If only people would realise that drug related crime is directly the governments fault....

Anyway. I feel like saying something about MDMA now but I'm in such a shit mood from talking about the drug war. Thanks guys :lol: :(

the video isn't playing for me - is there another version of it somewhere?


(here's what i have to say aside from the actual video content)

wait, are we differentiating 'ecstasy' from pure MDMA?? there's a difference between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Even though acatelophobic misunderstood your question "It also provides a useful scapegoat for the government; one in which they can assume moral authority over, and also find a multi-demographic enemy with which people can relate to."
That sums it up.
It was started for monetary reasons. Hemp = awesome paper, clothing, rope etc. crop. Forests = quick, destructive, but very profitable paper. I'm sure you know the story by now. But to sum up quickly, William Randolph Herst was a "yellow journalist" (meaning he printed outright lies, just off the top of his head, to sell papers and his own opinion). He owned a newspaper company and they used tree paper, Hemp was taking off because some Hemp farmers invented the decorticator, which made Hemp farming profitable. Hearst didn't like this so he printed bullshit stories about "blacks smoking this drug Marihuana and raping white women", "people going crazy after one hit" etc. You know all the Reefer Madness stories.
The Gov banned it without realising they were also banning Hemp.

So that's the REAL reason. Money. It was covered up as racism because of the fears of that time (1930's).

---

Hrmm, that's not entirely accurate. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, who founded the Bureau of Narcotics under the auspices of the Treasury (wtf?!), had every incentive to see hemp outlawed as well, because of his majority interest in Dupont, which had several pending patents for processes related to woodpulp paper and nylon fibers, for which hemp products were poised to become a strong competitor. It was that Bureau, headed by Mellon's nephew-in-law, that commissioned "Reefer Madness" and other propaganda films, and pushed cannabis prohibition through congress, using Hearst's articles and his term "marihuana" to keep legislators in the dark as to what they were actually prohibiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hrmm, that's not entirely accurate. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, who founded the....

---

Close enough. I was trying to give a short version. I can never remember all the details though so thanks for that.

Cygnus - I assume we're talking MDMA, and ecstasy meaning/assuming a person has pure MDMA. Even though most people have never even tried pure MDMA. Even the people who have taken 1000's of pills. Especially the people just starting out in the last few years though. Pills are shit everywhere except for certain states in America (Cali etc.) and certain places in Europe.
Australia is basically MDMA free tbh (for average person, I'm sure rich people can get it). We haven't had a good pill in a year or more.

I have done esctasy twice now. It is amazing, but I am done for now. I will most likely do it again in the Summer. But for now I am sticking to finding some Molly (pure MDMA)

In my opinion, virtually harmless drugs like MDMA are illegal so that the Government has a scapegoat upon which they can point the finger of blame for all of our "problems." If that makes sense. It's not even that, really, it's almost like, we need another thing to declare "war" on, so that we can overcome whatever invisible "enemy" there is next.

Perhaps it's that they do know the potential that drugs hold for expanding one's mind. Maybe they're trying to suppress that. I would not be surprised. A dumb, afraid population such as USA's, is an easily controlled population.

I have taken ecstacy once. Though I never intend to do it again, it was one of the most eye-opening and amazing experiences of my life, coupled with one of the most depressing and hurtful, due to a 5 minute bad trip session, and then a 3 day crash of severe depression. Drugs aren't for everyone. That said, I don't regret it.

It's nice to see an even, unbiased news report. I can't believe that it was factual. What's this? Factual reporting? Maybe there is some hope for the fate of society. Afterall, news and media controls pretty much everything we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainman

In my opinion, virtually harmless drugs like MDMA are illegal so that the Government has a scapegoat upon which they can point the finger of blame for all of our "problems." If that makes sense. It's not even that, really, it's almost like, we need another thing to declare "war" on, so that we can overcome whatever invisible "enemy" there is next.

Perhaps it's that they do know the potential that drugs hold for expanding one's mind. Maybe they're trying to suppress that. I would not be surprised. A dumb, afraid population such as USA's, is an easily controlled population.

I have taken ecstacy once. Though I never intend to do it again, it was one of the most eye-opening and amazing experiences of my life, coupled with one of the most depressing and hurtful, due to a 5 minute bad trip session, and then a 3 day crash of severe depression. Drugs aren't for everyone. That said, I don't regret it.

It's nice to see an even, unbiased news report. I can't believe that it was factual. What's this? Factual reporting? Maybe there is some hope for the fate of society. Afterall, news and media controls pretty much everything we do.

---

Couldn't of said it better! And that sucks about your bad come down, just smoke on the way down, it makes it perfect! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainman

I have taken ecstacy once. Though I never intend to do it again, it was one of the most eye-opening and amazing experiences of my life, coupled with one of the most depressing and hurtful, due to a 5 minute bad trip session, and then a 3 day crash of severe depression. Drugs aren't for everyone. That said, I don't regret it.

---

5 minute bad trip? Was that due the the ecstasy or did you take something else afterward?
Afaik it's impossible to have a bad trip on pure MDMA.
I'm not doubting you, just curious.