MDMA and Footbag

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
Maraxus
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1484
Joined: 29 Nov 2003 18:02
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Contact:

MDMA and Footbag

Post by Maraxus » 28 Apr 2009 11:16

Tried it for the first time and had an amazing experience. Played footbag the next day and couldn't believe how relaxed and calm I played. Very similiar to the Weed and Footbag topic, I just don't hear about this one every single day...
bodybuilda

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 21 May 2009 15:11

thiss post was temporarily removed to discuss whether it contravened the intent of our rules. it has since been returned to the boards - dyalander

Drugs are bad 'mkay. Seriously though, taking MDMA is dangerous. If I remember my neuroscience correctly, it works by manipulating levels of chemical neurotransmitters in the brain and can cause serious and permanent damage to brain function. There are also the risks involved with varied potentcy and quality, ie overdose and tainted batches. Furthermore, how sure can you really be that it was the drug itself that caused the improvement in your performance. I suspect you were engaged in a whole range of activites that may not be part of your normal routine and any one of these changes may have contributed to the improvement.

I'd recommend doing some serious research - reading articles about the effects of MDMA in peer reviewed scientific journals. I suspect you'll find that any short term benifits will be grossly outweiged by the risks and will only be short term benifits which would soon disappear with repeated use.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 21 May 2009 17:27

Erowid is always the shizzle when it comes to this sort of stuff.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma.shtml
Oliver Adams

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 21 May 2009 18:10

I think you'd be surprised Dyalan.

While there is no doubt that ecstasy, especially taken regularly or in large amounts can have negative health effects (and also increase "risky behaviour"), there was a very detailed study published in the Lancet (the most respected medical science peer reviewed journal in the world) a couple of years ago ranking the actual danger drugs pose to health.

Here was the ranking;

Image

Note that all the drugs in the study were found to increase the risk of negative health risks. However some are certainly far more dangerous than others.

Per person consuming the product, ecstasy is safer than peanuts.

Of course it really depends on the behaviour of the person doing the drugs and the quantities and regularity with which they use them.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 21 May 2009 18:16

Just wanted to add my claim that ecstasy is safer than peanuts comes from the editorial from New Scientist, that also ran a story on it;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... minds.html

The claim they make is that if you are give a random pill claimed to be ecstasy to a random person, or a give them a peanut instead, there is a much higher likelihood that the peanut will cause serious negative health risks than the pill, even taking into account the possibility of the pill not being ecstasy and being cut with something else.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 21 May 2009 18:19

Sorry triple post. Apparently I misread that editorial - it's not a random pill, it's specifically a pill containing MDMA. In my defence I hadn't read that since it was published in on Feb 11, so I must have become confused, clearly because I do so much drugs (actually the only drugs I do are alcohol and caffeine).

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 22 May 2009 00:36

That doesn't really surprise me - though was danger measured by instances of injury caused by the drug or by the nature of it's physiological effects on the body? What were the relative dosages they compared are we comparing a few beers with a pill or binge drinking with a pill?
Either way, ecstasy is rated just below anabolic steriods and GHB, both of which I would consider too dangerous to take.

I'd be interested to know what dosage of alcohol they used. If I remember/get a chance I'll check it out - if anyone else is interested it is - "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" Mar 24, 2007, The Lancet,
Vol. 369 No. 9566 pp 1047-1053. I had a quick look on their site and looks like you can just set up a login name and access all their articles.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 22 May 2009 00:40

I also noticed that in the years since I was taught about MDMA questions about one of the studies often cited back then have arisen - "Concern over research reawakens ecstasy neurotoxicity debate" - The Lancet Neurology, Volume 2, Issue 11
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 22 May 2009 01:16

Sorry I don't know the details but I'll have a look. I'm guessing definitely physiological effects, and probably both. The position of tobacco shows that physiological must be taken in to account (I'm fairly sure injury while smoking is fairly rare) and the position of alcohol hopefully includes injury, otherwise I'm in trouble...

You state; "ecstasy is rated just below anabolic steriods and GHB, both of which I would consider too dangerous to take."

However alcohol rates 5th on that list (ecstasy is 18th).

From my experiences I think that's fairly accurate, and I say that as I start my 4th beer since I got home from work an half an hour ago.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 22 May 2009 01:22

Sorry, another double post.

I'm think this was a meta study - I'm fairly sure they didn't get people to try each of the drugs and then measured their health - I think they used the results of other studies and compiled the rankings. I'm guessing most studies on recreational drugs are based on surveys trying to estimate the frequency of drug use combined with medical studies attributing death, injury or poor health to particular drug use. There have been some good long term studies following the health of drug users, such as the NZ study also published in the Lancet that conclusively showed that people with no history or genetic disposition to mental illness who or otherwise absorb THC (weed) once have a 40% (off the top of my head) higher chance of developing a mental illness and that rate increases significantly the more times you get high, but such studies are expensive and rare.

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 22 May 2009 05:20

Just thought it would be useful to point out that while MDMA is relatively safe in its pure form, you pretty much never get it that good.

Because it's really popular there is a high demand that often isn't met, so the people who make it often throw in a bunch of other random crap, which is often where the danger lies.
Oliver Adams

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 22 May 2009 05:22

IMO just shoot that heroin. Its safe as and feels goooooood...
Oliver Adams

mc
Modifiend
Posts: 7628
Joined: 22 Apr 2002 15:16
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Contact:

Post by mc » 22 May 2009 14:52

screw ecstasy, I like to get ripped on jenkem before I shred.
BRICK!

rfa::never give up::
nyfa

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 22 May 2009 19:39

Matt Cross wrote:I like to get ripped on jenkem
I looked at the wikipedia article and lol'd
Oliver Adams

User avatar
Asmus
Ass Moose
Posts: 3776
Joined: 13 Jun 2004 08:18
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Post by Asmus » 23 May 2009 03:16

Yeah that was funny.

This documentary on ecstasy is really really good:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjvNCijeYlI[/youtube]^ Part 1 of 5

And thanks for reposting those 2 articles Jeremy I have been looking for them, because me and friend was just discussing this.

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 25 May 2009 00:33

You state; "ecstasy is rated just below anabolic steriods and GHB, both of which I would consider too dangerous to take."

However alcohol rates 5th on that list (ecstasy is 18th).
But without knowing the parameters of the definition of dangerous it may be squewed by the amount of poeple who consume alcohol relative to the other drugs - also I know that there have been a few studies pointing out the relatively high danger of alcohol to other drugs and I remember thinking at the time I first came across them that their measures opened them up to this error. IE they weren't measuring the relative physiological damage the drug does to your body as it is consumed and processed but rather the broader danger of the drug as it functions as a consumable in society. I think alcohol is affected more than other drugs by this and so am inclined to dismiss its position in that study as good indicator of how dangerous it is in comparison to many of the others, while amongst themselves they may not be to biased in this way to make arelative judgment. I'll accept it is somthing of a spurious assumption and it'd be better to look up the studies and get specificsoOr to search for a study that assess the physical affects of the drugs in question rather than the broader dangers.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

User avatar
Asmus
Ass Moose
Posts: 3776
Joined: 13 Jun 2004 08:18
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Post by Asmus » 25 May 2009 02:04

Asmus wrote:Yeah that was funny.

This documentary on ecstasy is really really good:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjvNCijeYlI[/youtube]^ Part 1 of 5

And thanks for reposting those 2 articles Jeremy I have been looking for them, because me and a friend was just discussing this.

User avatar
colefieldhouse22
BSOS Beast
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 17:55
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Contact:

Post by colefieldhouse22 » 16 Jun 2009 19:28

That was a really interesting documentary. Thanks for sharing
Adrienne Craver

User avatar
CautionFragile
BSOS Beast
Posts: 410
Joined: 05 Jun 2007 05:45
Location: Sudbury, Ontario

Post by CautionFragile » 29 Jun 2009 06:51

Just lick a toad. Then shred the toad. If you're lucky the toad will hop as you set and because you be trippin you'll be able to "do" backside gauntlet first try if you're still tiltless. Has anyone ever done a 12 ADD??? because you will. Reverse Swirling Furious Backflipping Ducking Paradox Torque. WATCH OUT! :P ......cause it may all be a hallucination.

I saw an episode of 20/20 or something this one time when I was younger where Dan Rather or Hugh Downs went undercover as a raver and this teenage girl walked up to him and was all: "hey are you rolling?". And then she went on to say: "Because I'm totally rolling, and this feels soooooo good"....AND SHE WAS PUTTING OUT A CIGARETTE ON HER ARM!!!!! 8O That right therrr turned me off from XTC I tell you hhwhat.....the band XTC though, they were playing in the background.

Also I've heard alot of different opinions on the negative effects of MDMA, including the yole damage to the spinal column deal. I've also read that it can cause seizures and comas. Not fun.

As for the positive effects of the drug....PARTY!! TSS BOOM CHIKUH BOOM CHICKAH BING BANG BOOM CHICKAH WEEEDELLYWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
ted
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 790
Joined: 12 Sep 2002 10:34
Location: CO
Contact:

Post by ted » 29 Jun 2009 13:18

cool, man.
Theodore Anderson

Post Reply