A Matter of Perception part 2: Ecstasy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vv4PjqrA-k (interview)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpFqJcJcps (documentary) Is summed up well at 41:30 by a DEA agent

http://www.pillreports.com/

http://jop.sagepub.com/content/25/4/439.short (scholarly article)

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=7&sid=7203f250-8628-410b-ab0f-82faacfde065%40sessionmgr11 (you have to be logged into a university email account to view it. It outlines the issue of the scheduling of MDMA very well)

The image shown above is the drug known as ecstasy or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). As you may or may not know MDMA is a schedule 1 substance as determined by the drug enforcement agency (DEA) in 1977. This substance has as complicated history as any that I know. Since it was first synthesized in 1912 its purpose has changed several times. In the 1950's, 60's, and 70's it was used therapeutically with psychotherapy to treat several disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and clinicians were hopeful about its use. Then in the late 70's, as with any chemical that has properties that gets a person 'high', it was beginning to be used recreationally. The government was afraid of it's widespread use and thus supported it being classified as a schedule 1 substance despite clinicians testimonies that it could be used therapeutically. Then in the past 10 years there has been a resurgence of MDMA therapeutic benefits as outlined in the third link above. The issue is whether ecstasy should be placed as a schedule 1 substance which prohibits its use therapeutically.

The history of MDMA is important to understand when speaking in terms of social constructions. First MDMA was explicitly a 'medicine' or therapeutic agent. It was when the government and DEA stepped in that MDMA was seen as an illicit substance and inherently bad in its existence alone. The media and influence of the government (discursive technology) turned the perception of MDMA to a harmful substance, even advertising that one recreational dose could case permanent neurological damage (outlined in my first link perfectly in a Peter Jennings interview on his documentary(ecstasy rising, second link)).

Is it reasonable to assign ecstasy as a schedule 1 substance when it does not meet all of the criteria for schedule 1? There has been much research done that shows the benefits of using MDMA therapeutically (the fourth link I posted), in which MDMA in conjunction with psychotherapy was almost 3 times more effective in treating PTSD than conventional treatments such as antidepressants and therapy. On top of that this chemical has been proven to not be physically addicting, meaning that if you took it repeatedly and then stopped you would not have a physical withdrawal from the drug like cocaine or heroine. Also this is the only schedule 1 substance that I know of that has its own website to try and help ensure users that what they are buying is MDMA and to be safe about using it. The third link I posted is a website (pillreports.com) in which users report the content of certain 'brands' (markings like the A1 or ? pill as seen in the picture) to try and ensure that users are taking MDMA instead of substances sold as MDMA.

MDMA is also the only illicit substance in which users report that taking the substance changed their lives for the better (outlined in my second link-documentary). They stand buy the fact that they are better persons after taking the substance, no heroine or cocaine user would admit to this. I (as you can tell from what I have written so far) feel strongly that MDMA should not be a schedule 1 substance. Its therapeutic potential could help many who have treatment resistant PTSD, such as war veterans.

This is an issue that can be related to our discussion in class. The science favored folks would agree that MDMA should not be a schedule 1 substance based on the evidence provided while those based on faith, which is heavy with morals, would say that taking a mind altering substance should be banned and not used therapeutically. The social construction of the idea of 'illicit' hinders the use of MDMA by means of the government acting upon society's construction of that term and its popular belief. In order for MDMA to be used therapeutically the DEA would have to repeal its scheduling of MDMA as 1 and thus would bring about questions of whether or not the DEA is purely objective or is being influenced by things such as 'manufacturing consent' and social constructions.