Who is to say what's "abuse" really.
Why would taking MDMA in a therapist chair be "medicine" and taking it and dancing all night long be "abuse"? Because that's how they're going to try and control it. I'm not even sure which would be healthier for you or more effective. Like, obviously there's a point where it's too much, but if you let the "medical establishment" define it, it'll definitely be defined as any point in which people might actually be having fun.
I've known people who did it nearly daily for long stretches, and others who would only take it once a month and take Prozac after to mitigate and potential damage. I'm not saying that the latter is the only non-abusive way of taking it, but clearly the former would constitute abuse.
I think it's critical that all of us (however we feel about the 'morality' of doing drugs) have the humility to acknowledge that there isn't any policy "solution" to these problems. These are humanity problems (really, animal problems, since any animal can experience addiction and chemical dependence).
It is arguably deeply unfair to prohibit people from experiencing the best that these substances have to offer (and I don't just mean in a therapy setting). But it's also dangerous to "let" them get in over their heads. Unfortunately though, the verb "let" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Even well-meaning and trusted parents aren't able to effectively guarantee their children's safety (either with prohibition or with a more lenient, discussion-based strategy). How much less effective then, is a government which isn't and can't ever be completely trusted by its citizens? No matter what, we won't 'solve' this with some perfect policy.
_Almost everyone_ who uses recreational drugs or drinks stops drinking or doing drugs _on their own_ without any intervention. There's this idea that's been propagated that drugs are this evil demon that you can never shake once you get addicted, because for people who deal with drug addicts professionally, _all they ever see_ are people who haven't quit drugs almost by definition. However, those drug addicts are a _small_ percentage of all the people who have used drugs.
https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archi...
Drug policy is basically based on the survivorship bias fallacy.
In other worlds, well-adjusted people with support networks rarely "get addicted" to drugs (as if they are some sort of cursed potion that anyone who consumes is afflicted).
General rule of thumb is to not even do it more than 1x-2x a year. Even then most people say that it doesn't feel as good over time.
When your brain becomes dependent on a drug that fries your brain temporarily with serotonin you will not feel as good without the drug. Doesn't sound like a fun time to me.
https://dancesafe.org/drug-information/is-mdma-neurotoxic/#1
Bizarre we have gotten to the point where the default is "take powerful drug because no scientist has proven not to in a century long twin study!!"
Long term abuse to the point that "users don't ever feel the same without it" is quite concerning and very problematic, but once or twice seems fine, despite the absence of "a century long twin study".
Because this is such an incredible oversimplification of what goes on in the brain. SSRIs also dramatically increase the overall serotonin flux, to the point where if you quit suddenly, the brain is left in a deficit, the effects of which can be quite unpleasant. And contrary to the "serotonin is happy chemical, more serotonin = more better" myth, the net result of all this serotonin is that 5-HT receptors actually downregulate. Ultimately, the result of all these changes is an increase in neuroplasticity.
Blasting 5-HT receptors (eg by LSD, psilocin, etc, and to an extent MDMA) is also shown to increase neuroplasticity.
Neurotoxicity and psychopharmacology are extremely complicated. It's beyond reductionist to say "drug floods brain ergo bad".
[1] Hatzidimitriou, McCann, and Ricaurte, “Altered serotonin innervation patterns in the forebrain of monkeys treated with MDMA seven years previously: Factors influencing abnormal recovery”, The Journal of Neuroscience, June 15, 1999, 19(12):5096-5107. Abstract.
The same Ricaurte that 'accidentally' gave excessive methamphetamine to monkeys intsead of MDMA. The same study.
I recommended nothing, and I didn't say there were no negative side effects. See HN guidelines please.
And no there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from long term users who never feel the same after frequent use, even after stopping. But again by your logical reasoning because there's no peer reviewed study on humans that sufficiently backs this up people should ignore that.
> And no there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from long term users who never feel the same after frequent use, even after stopping.
People who use one drug often use others, and often concurrently. We use science to disentangle these confounders like this.
I have no problem with people advising caution in using powerful drugs, and advising against them fully if they have a family history of mental health issues. I do have a problem when people try to use flawed science to give this caution a false sense of authority.
Aging is a thing. Most adults don’t “feel the same” after the passage of a “long term” span of time, regardless of their level of substance use.
Whatever the serotonin generation issues are (and I definitely had them, and that's why I stopped taking it), they seem to recover over time.
What's next, internet discussion forums? Is anywhere safe??? :)
(Personal observation, everyone's different though)
To me you can do it for like a year maybe if you wanna have fun, but staying in that state for more than that is on the edge of abuse.
Once again, I support trying MDMA. But most people who do it don't do their research
The key overall is always to not abuse and that should be adressed by education, not just mindlessly prohibit everything (even tho it's not too bad to forbid stuff somethimes).