NEWS: 40,000 Ecstasy Pills May Be a Few Too Many

You were watching The Osbournes?

Years ago, a guy I knew did take an excessively large number of pills a day, so much so that when we'd crash at his place after an all-nighter, (during which he'd take 10-15) my best friend and I would not sleep. Instead we would check that he was still breathing every time he stopped snoring, so paranoid were we that he'd OD'd.

We would have taken about 5 or 6 each over the course of the night as we'd been taking them for a couple of years, but he had built up a huge tolerance and we were so scared he'd overtaxed his system every time.

You build up tolerances over time. I used to take around 10 a night average at the peak of my usage, but a few years after "further education" I would die on my arse after two. Plus it depends on the strength of the pills. Around the mid nineties they were weak as shit.

During uni I used to run a club night and I would go out about 4-5 times per week. Say I took 10 per night for 4 years of my education thats about 8000 pills. So its not that crazy, but I bet his gums are knackerd.

dats a LOT

I get the sense that the stuff is somewhat worse for you than the everyday users think, and not as bad as GW Bush and friends would have you believe.
I think the guy in the article is going to be emotionally bouncy for a long time.

We have no way of knowing if they are any harm at all, as being a relatively new drug, insufficient time has elapsed to carry out long-term studies. There may be theories and projected estimates, but no hard evidence as of yet. It is simply too soon.

As for the short-term effects, not one Ecstasy-related death has actually been a direct result of the drug itself. All deaths that have occurred have been to the user's actions or non-actions, having taken the drug, such as dehydration, too much water, etc. They are indirect consequences of taking ecstasy, so as far as we know in factual terms, it is theoretically possible that a user who is not allergic to the drug and knows what is required (the correct water-intake, depending on the environment, etc) whilst taking it can continue to do so indefinitely without suffering any ill-effects.

See, I remember when E was MDMA. Who knows what the fuck they're calling Ecstasy these days...

I think they're calling it Ecstasy ?

Yes, MDMA is the active ingredient in ecstasy, and the 'better' pills are the ones with a higher content ratio of MDMA, although as TheNonStopDancer said, that certainly won't be all that's in your pill. Pure MDMA is usually sold in powder form, costs a lot more than ecstasy per gram and is a much more powerful, 'cleaner' high. More people prefer pure MDMA to ecstasy these days, as they're tired of wasting their money on pills that are made with smack, ket or other barbiturates/impurities.

Wow and I thought 4 was plenty!!!!

I call shananagans.


This study is one of many to report long term alteration to copgnative function as a result of MDMA use.
Or this one, demonstrating impairments in learning, consolidation, recall and recognition in MDMA uses.

I could cite dozens more. Search pubmed for MDMA and long term, or 'damage' or 'impairment'.

The drug was originally patented in 1912, and has been in use since the mid 1970’s. Hardly recent.

It doesn't matter when it was patented, the number of years that it has been in use is the significant figure when studying its effects on the human body. Also, the mid seventies is relatively recent when attempting to determine long-term effects.

In addition, I assume you're referring to MDMA in it's pure form, where as I (as well as somebody else in this thread) have already clarified that ecstasy, whilst containing an extremely small amount of MDMA has a very different composition to the pure form of MDMA. I was referring to ecstasy in my post, specifically. The effects of prolonged use of pure MDMA are bound to differ from those of prolonged use of ecstasy, which became mainstream as a recreational drug during the early 90's.

Furthermore, you can throw all the studies you wish at me but it will not alter the fact that they are just that: Studies. I had already stated that the subject has and still is being researched and that experts have their own educated opinions on the matter, based on the evidence they have compiled so far, but as much as I hate repeating myself, I will say again; not enough time has elapsed to prove what long-term effects ecstasy will have on users. I am not so naive to believe that there are no negative long-term effects, but it is fact that we do not yet know for sure what they will be.

Edited to amend typo.

[Edited on Apr 08, 2006 by Lissom]

Yes, obviously, the patent date alone means nothing. The point is that this isn’t a new drug. It was animal tested ages ago, continuing to today, and started wide spread human use thirty years ago. I’m not sure what you think ‘long term’ means. Thirty years of use absolutely qualifies as long term. Granted, we might not know the FULL EXTENT of long term use, but any physician will tell you that a three decade user of a drug is a candidate for ‘long term use’ studies. Although ill-defined, “long term” (generally) begins after about 7-10 years of use.

I don’t understand the point you are making here. The effects of everything MDMA is cut with are fairly established, and can therefore be controlled for. The major variable are the actual affects of the MDMA and any synergetic effects it may have with other drugs. I mean, I guess this makes for noisy data, but nevertheless the data seem to be showing clear and consistent trends.

Okay, lets get in to the nature of science. Through the scientific method nothing can ever be proven (well, except in special cases that I wont go into). There is no panel of doctors which review the data and decides what ‘fact’ is, or what should go in text books. You seem to think that ‘studies’ are somehow preliminary or inadequate to draw conclusions from. Well, the nature of the field is that there are only studies. Studies shape what comes to be accepted fact. And the fact of it is, there are persistent and significant trends in the data which are demonstrating the effects of mild, moderate, extensive, as well as latent and active use of ecstasy. If you wish, you can take issue with the way the data was collected, the significance of the numbers, contradicting data, or the methods employed. But you can’t simply dismiss data because you believe something, or have decided it is only ‘opinion’. That is not grounds on which to reject data. That would be a lot like when people dismiss evolution because it is ‘only a theory’. It’s improper foundation.

[Edited on Apr 08, 2006 by TheRedBaron]

damn, and i thought i was bad

Smack has never been found in any pills, it usually just ket. If you get any smack in a £2 pill, then someone os loosing money somewhere.

AlsoI find this whole MDMA powder thing questionable. A massive market crash for dealers from £15 to £2 over 5 years and suddenly they come up with an alternative in powder form with a mark up? I'm pretty sure its just MDA pills or whatever else crushed up. Its going to be stronger cause your sniffing it anyway, I doubt anyone could tell. I could be wrong but it just seems a bit far fetched.

Yes that makes sense, I just cast my mind back and recalled that a common complaint with some pills were that they were 'too smacky' although that must be a description of the effects rather an indication of the pill's content.

No, it's definitely not crushed up pills (not the stuff I would get anyway) and although it's in powder form, you would not snort it unless you wanted to be considerably uncomfortable, complete with stinging sinuses and streaming eyes for the next couple of minutes. It's not a matte powder, as crushed pills would be; it's a glittering, pure white powder that is absolutely loaded with crystal.

As for the price, I never paid for mine because he was a good friend, (gone to prison now) but I was present during a few sales and people would pay about £40. for the gram. I don't know if that's the average street value or not though.