posted
There are case reports in the literature of very serious sequelae after the first use of MDMA/Ecstasy: ischemic stroke, intracranial bleed, and heart attack, to name just a few (likely secondary to the direct effect of spiking heart rate and blood pressure, which is not prevented by adequate hydration). Myelopathies and (sometimes fatal) cardiac arrhythmias have also been reported. These were in people without underlying medical issues.
This is an amphetamine derivative, and amphetamines are potent drivers of autonomic hyperactivity. It doesn't need a contaminant to cause a severe stress on the body.
There are longer-term studies on populations of people, and if it matters to someone's opinion, I will look it up.
Regardless, it is certainly not true that first-time use of MDMA/Ecstasy is problematic only if it is impure or you have an underlying medical problem. Often people get away with it without immediate complications, but not always.
posted
I am the same age as Obama. I've never used recreational drugs but I am in the minority for people my age. According to studies by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 69% of people my age (Obama's age) report having used illegal drugs atleast once in their life. Since that is self reporting of an illegal activity, 69% is probably lower than the real number.
Based on my experience, I'd guess that around 90% of the white men my age have tried illegal drugs at some point in their life. The number is lower for women, perhaps closer to 50%. I haven't been able to find any gender related stats, but my guesses are consistent with an overall 70% drug use in people my age.
The bottom line is that the dilemna faced by Obama about what to say or not say about his youthful indiscretions, is the same dilemna facing millions of parents, teachers and public figures. Do you tell the truth or try to hide it? You don't want your kids to get involved in drugs but you don't know how to tell them not to do something that you did. You don't want to lie to your kids, but you're afraid that being truthful will make them respect you less.
As a Mormon and Christian, my bias is for honesty and openness. Both the Bible and LDS scriptures are clear that we must confess our sins and forsake them in order to fully overcome them. Hence I believe that those who are dishonest about their past sins, will continue to be handicapped by them. I find it interesting that many psychological analyses of addictive behavior, arrive at this same conclusion.
As a result, I am far more disturbed by G.W. Bush's refusal to talk about his youthful drug use than I am about Obama's openness.
Those who think that some lying is a necessary component of drug education are seriously mislead. If you think its necessary to lie to defend a position, then you ought to seriously reconsider the position. Truth has never needed lies to defend it.
In my rather extensive experience working with young people in their teens and twenties, I have found that adults must be open and honest with young people in order to earn their respect. Its surprising how savvy kids are to lies and exagerations when they are used by adults, particularly considering how naive they are to lies told by their peers and the media.
For this reason, many of the traditional drug education programs fail horribly. I have several friends who were turned on to drugs by their schools anti-drug programs. The problem is that when you exagerate the dangers of something, you cast a doubt not only on your details but on the message itself. Add that to the rebellious nature of many kids (i.e. my mommy said not to put beans in my ears, so I did) and you have a recipe for encouraging drug use.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is Mitt Romney's comment that Obama's coming out was inappropriate a Mormon thing?
I think that any Mormon who finds Obama's confession inappropriate lacks an clear understanding of the Mormon doctrines regarding repentence and the virtue of honesty. I would like to hear how Romney justifies his views within the context of Mormon doctrine. He may have some reasonable explanation but I fail to see how his comment is consistent with the 13th article of faith which begins, "We believe in being honest, true . . .", and D&C 58:43 "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No, it's not. And since I don't think wishing makes it so, I don't see what your point is. Sex amongst many teens in most states is not illegal, but we don't want them doing it. Drugs are illegal, and we don't want kids doing them. We educate them in the hopes that they'll make smart choices for themselves.
You had a very different sex ed program than the one I had. The sex education I got from my parents, community members, elementary school, middle school and high school had absolutely NO focus on "we don't want them doing it." Sex was not discouraged, at all. If it was in your programs, you grew up in a much more rigid environment than I did.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Except this part:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Some lying is a necessary component of drug education.
You're under the false impression that the people I was responding to consider "drugs are dangerous" to be a sufficient drug education. Do you consider "drugs are dangerous" to be a sufficient drug education?
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The polar opposite of that would be "most of the people that believe the statistics would probably do drugs". That just doesn't make sense.
Does it matter whether it makes sense or not? It's what the anecdotal evidence I have strongly suggests.
quote:The opposite of that would be along the lines of "when people find out that certain drug statistics are lies it does not affect their trust of other drug statistics". The only way I know of to validate that claim is to perform a poll.
Remember the part where I said this is based on anecdotal evidence? The claim isn't validated either way: we're pointing out that our anecdotes have led us to different conclusions.
quote:That's really a false analogy. In my class we watched numerous documentaries and investigative journalism (most were recorded from TV) that contained real drug users. They weren't censored. One documentary showed everything about the people it was following including how they prepared the heroin and how they shot it up. These people had no reason to lie to the camera and make up some BS reason for why they were doing drugs. If they were motivated by celebrities they would have said so. Most said they got into drugs because their friends were into drugs. Over half ended up in jail so I find it dubious that the documentary makers were bribing them to lie.
When you're watching programs like that, you're watching through several filters: the people putting together the documentary/report are hand picking what evidence to show you, the people they've interviewed are, by necessity, people who are willing to be interviewed. Just because the individuals interviewed aren't lying doesn't make the conclusions the documentary draws or the picture it presents true. All it is is an assemblage of anecdotal evidence - exactly what you seem to be objecting to above.
------
CT, I have yet to see a study on the effects of MDMA that adequately controlled for behavior variables. Proper use was implicit in my statement; if that wasn't clear, I apologize.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The polar opposite of that would be "most of the people that believe the statistics would probably do drugs". That just doesn't make sense.
Does it matter whether it makes sense or not? It's what the anecdotal evidence I have strongly suggests.
It matters because it doesn't make sense in general. Most of the people who believe the statistics would probably do drugs, while those who don't believe the statistics probably don't? If that's your conclusion then its probably safe to assume that you have an extremely skewed sample.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: CT, I have yet to see a study on the effects of MDMA that adequately controlled for behavior variables. Proper use was implicit in my statement; if that wasn't clear, I apologize.
I have no idea what this means.
However, this is clearly false:
quote:Actually, ecstacy (assuming you're talking about actual MDMA) is one drug that has been demonstrated to be non-lethal, even in excess, even the first time.
And the qualifications on this statement make it false:
quote:There are also potentially serious complications if you're taking MDMA with SSRIs, MAOIs, Ritonavir, Viagra and/or other stimulants, among other things, but this relates to using MDMA in combination with other drugs.
--
Edited to add: amphetamines in sufficient quantities put the autonomic system in overdrive, and this can be disasterous from a cardiovascular standpoint. Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Rabbit's stats are correct and 69% have done illegal drugs, then both categories (those who believe "drug myths" and those who don't) more than likely have tried drugs. If the 90% for males is true, it's definitely true for them that large fractions of both categories have tried drugs. The categories are next to useless as determinants of behavior.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: This was assumed, given how much emphasis I've put on it elsewhere in this thread, but insert "alone" after ecstacy.
quote:Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
I have never seen a documented case where other variables--e.g. physical activity--were accounted for.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: CT: This was assumed, given how much emphasis I've put on it elsewhere in this thread, but insert "alone" after ecstacy.
I still do not know what you are talking about. In my second quotation of your words, it was the implication of "alone" that I was pointing to. You said it has not happened with MDMA alone, but it has.
quote:
quote:Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
I have never seen a documented case where other variables--e.g. physical activity--were accounted for.
I am under the impression that any of the case studies I might post would be responded to you as having variables "not sufficiently accounted for," regardless of how rigorous such studies may be. This seems to me to be a matter more of belief than knowledge.
No matter. We do not need to agree on this. I am satisfied with just making the disagreement explicit, and should it make a difference to anyone's opinion, I offer to go dig things up.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: CT: This was assumed, given how much emphasis I've put on it elsewhere in this thread, but insert "alone" after ecstacy.
quote:Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
I have never seen a documented case where other variables--e.g. physical activity--were accounted for.
Erso, even if we grant your premises and conclusions, so what? Outside of clinical trials, the millions of doses of MDMA consumed regularly are not pure, are often contaminated with a variety of other drugs and chemicals, and are often accompanied with hours of vigorous dancing. Testing doesn't address this, for the small percentage of users that bother.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Morbo just said too, of course, and it's important.
My point is that MDMA synthesized under controlled circumstances (say, some college lab student Hatracker with his chemical engineering buddy) is not a guaranteed safe high. Amphetamines work on the autonomic system, and they drive up heart rate and blood pressure in sufficient doses. They also can cause fatal arrythmias. None of this is new, and frankly, none of it is specific to MDMA out of the whole amphetamine class.
---
Edited to add: such cardiovascular complications are rare. They are not frequent, but they do exist, and that is worth knowing.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Erso, even if we grant your premises and conclusions, so what? Outside of clinical trials, the millions of doses of MDMA consumed regularly are not pure, are often contaminated with a variety of other drugs and chemicals, and are often accompanied with hours of vigorous dancing. Testing doesn't address this, for the small percentage of users that bother.
The whole reason I got into this tired debate is to demonstrate that lies can be useful tools in drug education. If you grant my premise and conclusions--that MDMA, in and of itself, is a non-lethal substance--you're basically agreeing that "ecstacy can kill you" is a useful lie in drug education, because, as I pointed out in one of my first posts in this thread on the subject, there are so many variables to account for that telling the truth about ecstacy is an exercise in futility. To give you a more concise example: blaming ecstacy as the cause of death when someone takes a pill that contains MDA, DXM and speed, then dances for three hours, is a useful lie, as it warns people away from taking random pills and, because this is how the vast majority of people will be exposed to ecstacy, helps keep people from using the drug at all.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In realistic terms, ecstasy = random pills, so the distinction is academic. It's not a lie, it's shorthand. If someone's intent was to get high on ecstasy (which I have, a Long Time Ago) but they get something entirely different, ecstasy + X, then are dead as a result, then taking street ecstasy killed them.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: In realistic terms, ecstasy = random pills, so the distinction is academic. It's not a lie, it's shorthand.
See, this is a legitimate quibble. I disagree, but working from your premise, your conclusion makes sense, and I'd agree.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
My brother is going through the open adoption process, and he recently told me that heroin taken by expecting mothers is not catastrophic for fetal development, and that alcohol is far worse. I find that shocking.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I am satisfied with just making the disagreement explicit, and should it make a difference to anyone's opinion, I offer to go dig things up.
For example, this case series covered fatalities in some young MDMA-users who were not dancing, doing other strenous exercise, or dehydrated:
quote:These cases illustrate that hyperthermia associated with MDMA use cannot be solely attributed to rave parties (high ambient temperatures, excessive dancing, dehydration, and overcrowded conditions), drug contaminants, or co-ingestants.
This person was using with a friend alone in an apartment (usually it is renal failure secondary to dehydration that causes hyperkalemia, or high potassium levels, but that was ruled out in this case):
quote: Acute and severe toxic effects following MDMA ingestion include hyperthermia, arrhythmias, rhabdomyolisis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, hepatotoxicity and even death. Recently, we treated a patient in whom hyperkalemia, in the absence of renal failure, aggravated the expected toxic complications of MDMA, becoming the immediate cause of his death.
In this case, there was a single dose of MDMA, there were no other drugs on the toxicology screen or history, and her blood and urine showed her not to be dehydrated:
quote:There are an increasing number of reports of MDMA-induced toxicity that exhibit features of the serotonin syndrome. We report a case of severe hyperthermia, altered mental status, and autonomic dysfunction after a single recreational ingestion of MDMA.
This man had a fatal overdose on the MDEA form of ecstasy alone before he had a chance to enter a rave party:
quote:A 19-year-old man died after the intake of ten tablets of Ecstasy containing 3,4-methyl-enedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDEA) as the main active ingredient. According to an eyewitness the symptoms of intoxication were strong sweating, sudden aggressiveness followed by hallucinations, subsequent failure of motoric coordination, severe spasms of arms and back, complete depression of the respiratory system, unconsciousness, and collapse. Resuscitation by an emergency doctor failed. Major autopsy findings were severe vascular congestion of all internal organs, liquid post-mortem blood, numerous subpleural and subepicardial petechial haemorrhages. By GC/MS analysis, MDEA was found in large amounts in serum (12 mg/l in femoral vein, 22 mg/l in heart blood serum), urine (201 mg/l), brain (18 to 28 mg/l) and in other tissue samples. Scalp-hair was highly positive for MDEA (17 ng/mg). Besides MDEA and its metabolites only trace amounts of MDMA could be found in urine and blood; no other drugs were detected. It can be concluded that the cause of death was a monointoxication by overdosage of MDEA.
---
Edited to add: I did not go back through the cardiology literature, but as I recall there is a case series of fatal arrythmias and intracranial bleeds out of Austria.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Boo for lying. Lying is a terrible way to interact with your kids. They will know, then they will quite rightly quit trusting you. Lying destroys relationships.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Tatiana, I have found the message, and I'll get back to you in the morning. )
---
Edited to add: as to the topic, I care about this point in particular because I suspect we have at least a few Hatrackers with the knowledge and facilities to make Ecstasy on their own. I don't want that to be thought of as a recreational event without any dangers. Admittedly, cases like these are rare compared to the typical user's experience, but you can't guarantee you won't have serious complications just by thinking you can take it safely, that you are smart enough to use it in ways that have no associated risks. It doesn't work that way.
quote:Posted by eros: You had a very different sex ed program than the one I had. The sex education I got from my parents, community members, elementary school, middle school and high school had absolutely NO focus on "we don't want them doing it." Sex was not discouraged, at all. If it was in your programs, you grew up in a much more rigid environment than I did.
Where the hell did you grow up? I didn't grow up at a monastary, but I also wasn't told that sex was a smart idea as a teenager. Are you seriously of the opinion that parents generally DON'T tell their kids that sex isn't a good idea at their age and that they aren't discouraging it? I think you have an extremely skewed vision of what the average American parent wants for their child when it comes to sex.
Parents might not just be stopping at "just say no" when it comes to sex, but come on, look at the debate that's happening right now over sex ed, and look even at the discussions we've had on this board about teen sex. Among the young crowd it's generally accepted, but it's NOT something parents want to happen. The debate is over the best way to prevent teen sex, not over whether or not it should be going on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is Mitt Romney's comment that Obama's coming out was inappropriate a Mormon thing?
I think that any Mormon who finds Obama's confession inappropriate lacks an clear understanding of the Mormon doctrines regarding repentence and the virtue of honesty. I would like to hear how Romney justifies his views within the context of Mormon doctrine. He may have some reasonable explanation but I fail to see how his comment is consistent with the 13th article of faith which begins, "We believe in being honest, true . . .", and D&C 58:43 "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."
I've been away all day, but I wanted to respond to this (as a Mormon).
Confession, for the purpose of repentence as discussed in that scripture, is not about public confession. While public confession can be appropriate (but I don't believe it often is), we as Mormons are encouraged, particularly when placed in positions as exemplars (i.e. missionaries, Priesthood leadership positions, etc.) not to discuss past sins, for the exact reasons mentioned previously in the thread.
While I would be bothered with anyone lying about their past when confronted with a question, I think there are more appropriate ways and forums for discussing Obama's history of drug use than during an informal discussion in a middle school. The more I think about it, the more I feel his comments were inappropriate.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad I live in a culture which does not forbid the frank public discussion of past mistakes for fear of making those mistakes sound too appealing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:While public confession can be appropriate (but I don't believe it often is), we as Mormons are encouraged, particularly when placed in positions as exemplars (i.e. missionaries, Priesthood leadership positions, etc.) not to discuss past sins, for the exact reasons mentioned previously in the thread.
That's a not a definition of exemplars I share. For me, I'd be more likely to point to someone who has made and learned from mistakes than someone who pretends or conceals that they ever made them.
If someone makes mistakes, but realizes they were mistakes and overcomes them, I think that them frankly discussing those mistakes is going to be hard to take as endorsing those mistakes for others. Likewise, being able to address the situations and temptations that people are going through from the perspective of "This is what that is a bad idea" or understanding what they are going through and maybe knowing what would have helped you seems to be a better position then pretending you don't know what it's like or not addressing it because you'd have to admit your own faults.
edit: I'm also wary of any organization that holds up its leaders as better than human.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify, perhaps. The intent is not to imply perfection in leaders. An understanding that all people are working toward perfection, but none (other than Christ) have or will achieve it in mortality is a core element of LDS doctrine.
Leaders are instructed not to discuss, in detail, past sins. The rationale for this is not to pretend to perfection, and a (public) recognition of our imperfections and weaknesses is also part of a leader's or examplar's role. Rather, the intent is to prevent impressionable audiences, particularly youth, from taking away (rationally or not) the idea that since this person they admire did this thing, it is alright on some level for them to do so, too.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
