Once a week is sustainable in the short term but I am not recommending that and make no claims as to its safety in the long term. I would have no way of knowing other than googling studies.
That being said I'd still like a source for the claim:
"Yes but MDMA specifically will mangle your brain after very little recreational usage relative to almost all other drugs."
I've known a person or two that simply didn't know how to space out their use, and did wind up with depression as a result. But this is the sort of thing that you can teach so long as you are honest about the rest of your drug education. It is something you can teach when you sell it to people. You can limit what folks can buy and keep a record of when people buy it - we already do this with some decongestants, after all. It isn't that there is not risks, but your comment is misguided on what constitutes more common recreational use of this particular drug and the things we can do to avoid this situation.
Would you prove that please?
https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/b3a9c7d1-bb08-42f3-...
Two points to note: (a) The study looked at the effect of the 'street' drug Ecstacy - ie. cut with other harmful drugs - not pure MDMA; (b) Perhaps the low 'harm to self' rating is an indirect product of the fact that it is illegal - if it was more widely available people would abuse it much more than alcohol and it would get a higher 'self harm' rating
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Alcohol and cigarettes are not really comparable to MDMA, and I just wanted to make that point. Marijuana? Sure, in much the same category, probably safer. MDMA is a whole different class of chemical.
And a certain percentage of people that tried that would get addicted and die from either acute or chronic effects.
Addiction potential and usage patterns are part of the harm profile of a drug. Alcohol is measurably worse.
> In the fall of 2002 George Ricaurte, the Dark Prince of suspect science, published an article in the prestigious journal Science that claimed that a “common recreational dose” of MDMA caused severe damage to the dopamine systems of monkeys.[26] (Parkinson’s disease involves the death of dopamine neurons, so extensive damage to your dopamine axons could presumably cause symptoms similar to Parkinson’s.) The press and politicians went mad. Draconian new anti-MDMA laws were passed, including the infamous RAVE Act, which made it illegal to throw a party if you “should have known” that some people would be using drugs at it. MAPS, which had been on the verge of finally having its MDMA post-traumatic stress disorder research approved, was stopped cold in the face of the apparent new evidence of MDMA’s horrific dangers.
> More than a year later, after scathing criticism from TheDEA.org, the house of cards collapsed when Ricaurte sheepishly admitted that the experiment never really happened: The monkeys had actually been given massive doses of methampetamine, not MDMA! He also admitted that no matter what they had tried, they had been unable to damage monkey’s dopamine systems with real MDMA.
Now of course if you consumed alcohol at anywhere near the frequency you consume water that wouldn't be good either, but why would that be a fair comparison?
Not really comparable. Would be comparing someone who has used MDMA 1-2 a week for 20 years against someone who had a couple of beers a week in college then stopped.
Heavy prolonged use / abuse of MDMA is damaging. Same with any drug
Which are real-world, observable patterns. I'm not sure why we should ignore that?
Don't get me wrong, I think it should be legal, but lets not pretend it is comparable to alcohol.
Edit: TL;DR MDMA probably has incredible medical benefits, but this does not mean that it can be safely consumed at the same frequency as alcohol or tobacco.