
The DEA failure that prevented a potentially major medical breakthrough - Alex3917
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/21/the_colossal_dea_failure_that_prevented_a_potentially_major_medical_breakthrough/
======
chroma
If you haven't tried MDMA, I strongly recommend it.[1] I've used it twice in
the past six years, and it has completely changed how I interact with others.
Rolling on MDMA drastically curbed my social phobias. All of my negative
social emotions: my neuroticism, my self-consciousness, even bitter emotions
such as envy; all of them disappeared on MDMA. Afterwards, I felt as if I'd
been cured of a mental illness. While I'm certainly not as outgoing and
selfless as I would be on MDMA, I've moved my typical behavior closer toward
that. It has made me a healthier, happier human being. More importantly, my
interactions help others much more than they used to.

It is a tragedy that some parts of the US government try so hard to restrict
this drug. I fully agree that it is a powerful, dangerous drug. Still, for
most purposes, the benefits almost certainly outweigh the harms. I think
future generations will look back on this as a moral failing of our time.

1\. In moderation, of course, and mega-caveats for anyone who has a family
history of schizophrenia. MDMA is not good for your brain. However, I think
for many people it may be necessary to use the drug to open a figurative door.
I wish better drugs existed, but research in the field has been stifled.

~~~
teekert
There is no reason to assume that there are no substances that can either
temporarily alter you and inspire you to pursue a certain state of mind more
often (without the drug) or that can alter you for a longer time.

That said, the birth of my son altered me for a long time (made more
emotional, better able to enjoy emotion). Finishing the reconstruction of my
house with my own hands altered me (showed me I can do major things when I
just start doing them). Getting my PhD showed me that even though I reached
the maximum level of education I can still have insecurities about my
intelligence and they are thus irrational. Reading Atlas Shrugged changed me
from someone who automatically though from a group perspective to someone who
kept his own needs at a higher priority by showing me the moral rational for
this type of thinking.

I never tried LSD or the like but aren't they just shortcuts to states of mind
I can attain by learning myself to be more grateful for what I have? To be
more social and nice? Can I attain the long term effects of psychedelic drugs
by reading? By learning how to meditate? That is what I always believed.

Perhaps at some point I will experiment, now I feel I can't take any risks, I
need my brain the way it is to provide for my family.

~~~
tjradcliffe
Sure drugs are a short-cut, but you say that like it's a bad thing. What
rational person wouldn't want to use a short-cut to get to a desired
destination?

Did you do that work on your house with trees you'd taken down with your
teeth? Or did you use a bunch of short-cuts, developed over hundreds of
thousands of years, from saws to cut wood to hammers that pound nails to an
exchange economy that allows you to work at one thing and pay someone else to
do another for you (like build hammers etc). How big a short-cut is that!

Civilization is nothing but a huge collection of short-cuts.

Every tech company is in the business of developing and selling short-cuts.

So don't be running down short-cuts: they are what make our lives communal,
rich, pleasant, civilized and long.

The issues with drugs are not that they get us to places we'd like to go
without the otherwise-arduous work required, it's that they don't necessarily
get us there, and they can get us to places that are very difficult to get out
of. But the very fact that they can mess you up in ways you can't achieve by
reading or meditation suggests they can give us positive effects that can't be
achieved in other ways. It's not something I'd likely do myself, but if people
are bad places already, suffering from PTSD and the like, it's not
unreasonable for them to take the damned short-cut if it has a plausible
chance of working.

That said, I'm in favour of legalization, or at least decriminalization, in
part to reduce the risks: MDMA in particular involves a synthesis that I'd
really like to see done in a quality-controlled environment (there are mercury
compounds involved and if the chemist screws up their clients can die, which
unfortunately happens, and would not happen if the drug was legal, so I lay
those deaths at the feet of prohibitionists.)

~~~
Retric
There are plenty of easy ways to experience altered states. Don't sleep for
three days, Hyperventilate, Extreme Sauna, etc. The problem is it's generally
a random experience, and random in no way imply's beneficial. So, it's a
shortcut to some random place which might be useful, but some people get rich
playing the lotto does not mean it's a good idea on average.

~~~
pantalaimon
> Don't sleep for three days, Hyperventilate, Extreme Sauna, etc.

People are really underestimating altered states when they've never
experienced them. Psychedelic drugs are not as subtle as what you are
describing and MDMA in particular is not random at all.

Also don't confuse the immediate effect of the drug with what you learn from
the experience.

------
eksith
I often wonder if our civilization is in some sort of false vacuum.

While it's true our lives are better than in the Middle Ages, stories like
this and the myriad of misconceptions and outright lies that follow cannabis
really demonstrate, superstition still rules law. We've clothed ourselves in
technology, but not wisdom.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Of course. We exist in a world that has benefited greatly from and been
transformed by a more "enlightened" world view (one that is accepting and
embraces scientific principles), but at the same time it largely rejects that
world view, with abundant evidence everywhere.

We think we are sophisticated and advanced but there's only a skim of
sophostication on top of our primitivism. Look at our criminal justice system,
which makes a mockery of justice, perverts society, and embraces medieval
ideas about punishment, retribution, and suffering. You see similar things
everywhere you look. The idea of rule of law, then the subversion of law with
favoritism for the powerful. And so on. We don't notice much of this because
we see the good, which to be fair is important and nevertheless real, and
ignore the bad because it has become familiar (or worse, it is familiar but we
dismiss it as being exceptional, like sexual violence or police corruption).

~~~
eksith
Extremely well put!

------
SeanDav
That last line is just astounding:

 _The drug that had been “mislabeled” as MDMA and proven so horribly toxic
that it had stopped Michael’s study cold; the drug that was far more toxic
than actual MDMA, methamphetamine, already was a prescription medicine._

------
bsaul
Before young people here start harlem shaking their brain, remember that if
you're here, there's a high chance that your brain is your work tool. It's
what you make your living with. So take good care of it, and be cautious.

I don't know a drug smart enough to recognize bad memories from good ones.
Most of those Dr Frankenstein's pills effects have been found by random, and
as this article shows research on effects is very much a work in progress.

~~~
Nanzikambe
I think you misunderstand the point of MDMA in therapy, it doesn't need to
distinguish between "bad" or "good" memories, you do that. The substance
simply serves to ensure that you can begin to introspect on those experiences
that you might otherwise recoil from, or that might otherwise cause you to
sink deeper. Think of it as a person or maybe a place of total benevolence and
safety in all respects, within which nothing can hurt you and everything
nurtures you. From that place you can begin to heal yourself.

Let me re-iterate that, you do the healing. The substance just provides the
ideal setting.

~~~
aidos
Additionally, they're not used in the same way recreationally at all. There's
no therapy sessions delving deep into old suppressed memories; it's not a
comparable environment at all.

~~~
pantalaimon
Why do you think talking with friends can not provide a similar environment?

~~~
Nanzikambe
Imagine something you're deeply ashamed of, it's quite irrelevant whether that
shame is justified or not -- we're discussing psychosis here. So we're not
discussing "wow I really feel bad I didn't fix that bug I promised to", we're
talking a context analagous to "my <insert relative here> raped me and I
believe I'm to blame for the disolution of the only family I knew".

Now imagine discussing that with your hypothetical friends or peer group.
Hypothetical? Why is that? It's hypothetical because a frequent consequence of
damaging experiences is the inability to form meaningful connections with
others that engender that kind of trust or dynamic. Even if you were, would
you really want people you're presumably planning to know for the rest of your
life to have that as your reference point? And what happens when your peer
groups or friends are a entwined or part of the problem? Who do you turn to
then?

Now humour me just a little more and substitute the word "ashamed" in the
first sentence for every extant and applicable negative adjective. _That_ is
why you need a setting that insulates you in order to enable you to begin to
address and introspect in a therapeutic session, without "prop" like MDMA that
sort of setting takes time, qualifications and skill to build - and in some
case is impossible to build.

Edit: re-reading your comment I'm fairly sure I misunderstood your question,
regardless I leave my response

~~~
pantalaimon
> Imagine something you're deeply ashamed of, it's quite irrelevant whether
> that shame is justified or not -- we're discussing psychosis here.

And we are discussing MDMA here so that very feeling is numbed, it can't hurt
you in that very moment, you feel save by any means. (Provided you generally
feel comfortable among the people you are with).

Now for the sake of the argument let's assume the person here does have real
friends, friends they do care for them and aren't just random acquaintances.
Let's also not discuss some extreme cases where this might not be enough. But
that rape case you've mentioned might still work.

I find it kind of sad that you disregard the possibility that talking with
friends and getting their support, helping you to continue your life,
something humanity has done for millennia. Instead you say only a professional
can magically 'fix' it. I think you are making it a bit too easy here to
disregard all personal responsibility for your peers, saying that only an
expert can provide help.

> Even if you were, would you really want people you're presumably planning to
> know for the rest of your life to have that as your reference point?

I think that if you know them well enough and share more experiences with them
then just that, it will not be their 'reference point' but instead an
important fact to know you better and support you when necessary.

Of course there are situations where this is not applicable, but that goes for
everything. There are no magic bullets.

------
asnyder
I highly recommend watching Peter Jenning's informative and entertaining
documentary "Ecstasy Rising" which outlines much of what this article
describes but with a bit more investigatory goodness.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpFqJcJcps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpFqJcJcps)

~~~
andrewtbham
I also recommend this video... about recent studies about using mdma to treat
ptsd.

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5664700/ecstatic-states-
md...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5664700/ecstatic-states-mdma-ptsd-
treatment-video)

I donated money to this mdma study. You get a copy of the book this article
was excerpted from for some donations.

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/legalizing-psychedelic-
th...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/legalizing-psychedelic-therapy)

------
jrapdx3
FWIW I just got home from a professional meeting at which a topic was the pros
and cons of cannabis legalization (as in WA or CO).

The relevant part of that presentation was the potential _real_ therapeutic
value of some of the 400 or so component compounds resident in the natural
botanical plant material. The problem was that studying the possible effects
is impeded by the requirement for special permission to use cannabis (or
fraction thereof), since its a Schedule 1 drug.

Furthermore, the only legal source of cannabis is that which the federal
government supplies (grown in Mississippi), which is very limited. That's a
shame since preliminary studies suggest certain compounds in the plant may
indeed have therapeutic applications.

Other countries have gone further in studying cannabis (Israel was mentioned
by the presenter), but until the DEA policy changes, study will remain minimal
in the US.

Unfortunately, removing restrictions in individual states is not very helpful
since cannabis preparations produced in one state can't legally be shipped to
other states, a severely inhibiting factor for medical research.

Similarly, risks and benefits of MDMA have had minimal _systematic_
evaluation. Anecdotal reports are not considered "evidence" in the world of
science, as everyone reading here should know. The only way certain drugs will
be studied is to work toward changing DEA policy, there's no getting around
it.

~~~
GFischer
Could it be an opportunity for my country (Uruguay) to host large-scale
studies on marijuana? (100% legal here, though it's likely the next government
will backtrack at least a little)

What would we need to make it happen?

~~~
jrapdx3
Usually a researcher takes an interest in a topic and champions the cause.
Often the biggest problem is funding. Government or pharmaceutical industry
are common funding sources, sometimes private foundations are also sponsors of
studies. In any case, political savvy is the defining characteristic of
successful leaders in science as it is anywhere else.

I think what eventually allows new ideas to take hold is having the rigorous
studies producing "air-tight" results. I always say it's hard to argue with
facts. Once it's clear that "this stuff really works", others jump on board
spurring all kinds of related offshoots and new studies.

That's why it takes a tenacious and courageous leader to advocate for the
"cause" of basic or foundational clinical research. "Spontaneously
acceleration" happens if it turns out there's money to be made, but that may
be way, way down the road.

------
themartorana
They did the same thing to research in to Ibogaine.

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929313.900-mindalter...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929313.900-mindaltering-
drug-could-offer-life-free-of-heroin.html)

------
jpatokal
So administering meth instead of MDMA was a colossal fuckup, but why is that a
"colossal DEA failure"? The fault seems to lie squarely with the researcher in
question and/or their supplier, unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that
the DEA was behind switching the drugs.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_A._Ricaurte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_A._Ricaurte)

~~~
biot
I'm guessing this is the first DEA failure:

    
    
      "in 1985 ... the Drug Enforcement Administration declared MDMA a
       Schedule I drug — a drug with a high potential for abuse and no
       medical use. A Schedule I designation made MDMA use criminal and
       research into its therapeutic potential virtually impossible."
    

That, and:

    
    
      "As Mithoefer told Doblin in an email, 'When I asked him if he
       could tell me anything about what the concerns were, he would
       say only that they had to do with ‘safety.’'
    
       Which was odd, and disturbing. It was the job of the FDA and
       the IRB to determine if the study was safe, not the DEA. The
       role of the DEA in approving a Schedule I license was solely
       to ascertain that the drug could be secured from theft and
       distributed in accordance with the research protocol."
    

The DEA overstepped their mandate in interfering with the approval process for
use of the Schedule I drug when they questioned its safety, which is the role
of the FDA and the review board.

------
imperio59
Are you kidding me? LSD/Acid lodges itself in fatty tissue and can cause
people to re-experience acid trips at random when those acid crystals dislodge
themselves years later...

If you want to really fuck up your life then go ahead and take LSD. Can you
imagine years after taking a drug and driving down the interstate and having a
flashback and getting into an accident? What about holding your 3-month old
and dropping them because you just had an acid flashback?!

This is total BS. People who are stressed out need better nutrition, sleep,
and to get people who are stressing them out off their backs. What they DON'T
need is an acid trip.

~~~
swombat
Your comment is entirely misinformed. There's about 0.01% chance that this
comment will change your mind, but hey, I like hopeless causes!

Have a look through [http://erowid.org](http://erowid.org) and make up your
own mind about drugs instead of swallowing what other people have told you,
hook, line and sinker. Please consider the possibility that you've been
severely misled by the people who provided you with this understanding of
drugs. If you are still young, perhaps it is just because your understanding
is just your parents' prejudices untainted by actual experience. If you are
old enough to have lived your whole life, perhaps you've just not met the
right kind of people, only people who were misled like yourself, or who were
actively engaged in anti-drug propaganda.

Either way, you owe it to yourself and to your sense of intellectual curiosity
(the same that drives you to this site) to actually research this for
yourself, perhaps even find some people who take drugs in moderation, get to
know them better, and figure out whether there is truth in what you've been
told about drugs. Chances are you already know those people, they're just not
telling you because they know how you'd react and they care about you, so
don't want to get you riled up about a topic on which you're unwilling to
entertain other points of view.

Either way, the onus is now on you to find out more about the world rather
than perpetuating the incorrect dogmas which you've been fed.

Note: I used to be just as intolerant as you. Then I looked things up and I
experienced them for myself.

~~~
jqm
Reading back on previous comments it appears that Scientology may be one of
the deciding factors in the line of reasoning....

~~~
tedks
Yeah, "acid flashbacks" is a rumor originally started by L. Ron Hubbard.

