Drugs Live the Ecstasy Trial

Mindless_Clone

paddyrg wrote: »

I can handle my strontium and agrimony pills, me.

Any chemical which alters your physiology alters your physiology, otherwise you wouldn't take it. Even if every pill is 100% medical grade MDMA (it isn't) in standardised proportions (it isn't) and subjected to rigorous trials (it isn't) from a guaranteed supply chain (ever tried asking for your money back from dodgy dave?) etc you're still taking a product with unpredictable reactions with unknown medical fallout - and leaving the taxpayer to mop up if you screw yourself up, either an ambulance on the night, or years of mental health treatment and drawing sickness benefit for being unable to work with paranoia, etc. There is one school of thought that overstimulation of the happiness/reward neural pathways effectively decalibrates them, net result is akin to borrowing happiness from your future.

All very valid. However there is an argument that there could very well be medical benefits with MDMA, in the same way there is for paracetamol, aspirin, morphine etc. What's sometimes frustrating is the carte blanche "ban it" government stance. Surely this programme highlights that what's actually needed is to find out exactly what and how these drugs work so they can be utilised and applied in a proper medical setting if appropriate. Just banning something because some people have died taking it, and you don't really know what it does seems rather short sighted.

Of course you'll probably never stop street corner dealers trading dodgy pills that barely contain the drug and have heaps of dangerous chemicals in them instead. Not sure if this programme really made that point clear or not (I missed a bit so maybe missed that).

globalds

it was nice to see the science ..but surely there should have been a musical element to the testing ..the main reason it is such a popular recreational drug is it's association with the trance like state when listening to dance music.

the ex soldier was funny ..with his secret military training ..
he was so uptight ..all he needed was a few more trips to get beyond his fears.

i was interested in the lay preachers feelings of being euphoric and yet not close to her god ..

overall pretty interesting viewing.

Gavin83

dacouch wrote: »

I've been watching this and wondered, if anyone takes to much and loses it, will they show it on 4 OD?

I hope so, it should be as impartial as possible.

I haven't seen this show yet and it doesn't appear on 4od so I might need to watch it again once it's on TV.

paddyrg

Mindless_Clone wrote: »

All very valid. However there is an argument that there could very well be medical benefits with MDMA, in the same way there is for paracetamol, aspirin, morphine etc. What's sometimes frustrating is the carte blanche "ban it" government stance.

We agree - however the bans are for recreational takers, not licensed research groups. Get a license and you can research smallpox, MDMA, opiates etc to your heart's content :-)

fluffnutter

nrishiraj wrote: »

There is no such thing as a "bad pill" only the idiots who don't know how to handle themselves whilst taken one.

Are you sure about that? I'm no supporter of our drugs laws; I think they create their own problems. But there are far more persuasive arguments against the current drugs policy than 'there's no such thing as a "bad pill"'.

Azari

fluffnutter wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

If he is, it's probably as a result of taking one too many 'good' pills.

sv650s

all pills are good, hav'n it at the weekend bros!!

get some

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Azari wrote: »

Are you kidding?

The term OD has been common parlance for decades.

And certainly not just amongst children.

No Im not. Im well aware of the term and its reference. But you may have missed the fact that since C4 opened its doors it has always looked towards 'Yoof' as JSP would put it, hence me questioning why they used the term in the first place.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

It doesn't work properly without music and movement. You need that to see the altered consciousness/sensation that made it so popular.

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

No Im not. Im well aware of the term and its reference. But you may have missed the fact that since C4 opened its doors it has always looked towards 'Yoof' as JSP would put it, hence me questioning why they used the term in the first place.

So you are taking an initialism that directly relates to what it is intended to stand for 'On Demand' and tie that to a term that has been in use for decades by all strata of society and ask if they used it to appeal to youth?

There doesn't seem to be any logic to that at all.

(Unless you see 'On Demand' as not an obvious name for an on demand service and further believe that 'youth' think overdosing is in some way 'cool'.)