X?!?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is allowing soldiers, in an experiment, to take MDMA--a.k.a. ecstasy--to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. South Carolina scientists behind the trial think the feelings of emotional closeness reported by those taking the drug could help the soldiers talk about their experiences to therapists. Michael Mithoefer, a psychiatrist leading the experiment thinks, "people are able to connect more deeply on an emotional level with the fact that they are safe now."
Am I the only one who thinks this is truly and shockingly disturbing? I mean, ecstasy? These folks are suffering from post-traumatic stress because they have been compelled--under false pretenses of "liberation" for others and college tuition for themselves--to destroy an entire country.
Now we're gonna say, "It's OK, boys, take some ecstasy. Yeah – the same stuff you got expelled from high school for taking and thereby ended up getting tracked into military service . . . go ahead, this little pill will help you deal with the fact that these guys are running the show:
Can you feel the love?
Am I the only one who thinks this is truly and shockingly disturbing? I mean, ecstasy? These folks are suffering from post-traumatic stress because they have been compelled--under false pretenses of "liberation" for others and college tuition for themselves--to destroy an entire country.
Now we're gonna say, "It's OK, boys, take some ecstasy. Yeah – the same stuff you got expelled from high school for taking and thereby ended up getting tracked into military service . . . go ahead, this little pill will help you deal with the fact that these guys are running the show:
Can you feel the love?
posted by Contact... at 2:09 PM
13 Comments:
I think that anyone suffering from post-traumatic stress from something like fighting a war (for whatever reason) has my full and complete sympathy. At least this is a controled experiment. Everone I've ever known with PSSD uses some kind of drug to cope - if this experiment finds a treatment that works, Im all for it.
What's so obnoxious is that our government will posit that it must protect us from ecstasy and ourselves by criminalizing and villifying its use (Have y'all seen the public service messages denouncing X as a horribly dangerous drug?); then acknowledge its potential benefits and feed it to stressed out young soldiers freshly mindfucked by the war machine.
Do they expect that no one will see the inconsistency here? The fact is, ecstasy has a long and interesting history and has been useful in marriage counseling. (I wholeheartedly agree that couples can benefit from its use.) It's quite popular, I understand, in other parts of the world. Apparently, these cultures didn't experience the death and destruction we have been promised to expect from ecstasy use.
Funnier still, isn't it, that we are told to worry so much about a drug that basically makes you feel good when the pharmaceutical companies are pumping out as many different dangerous drugs as they can overcharge us for? Was it ecstacy in the news this week? Oh, no, wait, that was Merck, the big pharmie that's been selling dangerous, unneccesary pain relievers.
America's Drug War is a sham and a lie. I hope the soldiers get better.
It reminds me of that R.D. Laing quote:
"Take this pill
It will help you not to shout
It will take away the life
You are better off without."
Regina
Ariel is right to point out the absolute hypocrisy of throwing X dealers in jail -- unless it's the US Gubmint that's doing the dealing. Kinda like The Law chasing after killers and rapists -- except when the killers and rapists are wearing US military uniforms and reporting for duty at Abu Ghraib. Problem #372 for the traumatized GIs is that X can kill people on the spot.
Puts one to mind of the new Vioxx pain reliever scandal -- yup, Vioxx kills your pain, and maybe you too!
I think Ariel already summed up the whole business when she recently said, "America, pull your head out of your ass! I'm begging you!"
Ariel is right to point out the absolute hypocrisy of throwing X dealers in jail -- unless it's the US Gubmint that's doing the dealing. Kinda like The Law chasing after killers and rapists -- except when the killers and rapists are wearing US military uniforms and reporting for duty at Abu Ghraib. Problem #372 for the traumatized GIs is that X can kill people on the spot.
Puts one to mind of the new Vioxx pain reliever scandal -- yup, Vioxx kills your pain, and maybe you too!
I think Ariel already summed up the whole business when she recently said, "America, pull your head out of your ass! I'm begging you!"
I think it is a fallacy to believe that drugs are a healthy way to deal with PTSD. What these soldiers really need is good old fashioned therapy. I believe that drugs are a temporary escape, not a fix for such a complex melting pot of emotions. Instead, the army discharges them with little or no help. So many soldiers come home tonothing, and end up homeless drug addicts or alcoholics. Worse still are the vast majority who never really face the horrors they have seen. These men and women have to deal with these issues indefinately, and it will, no doubt affect their marriages and their families. I speak as a daughter of, a granddaughter of, a wife of, and a daughter in-law of veterans. Let's not facilitate these people drowning their sorrows in artificial uppers.
Ecstacy is not an "upper." It has proven helpful as a therapeutic drug, although I'm not sure if it's been tested as a treatment for PTSD.
"Good, old fashioned therapy," , which is not necessarily good or a time honored tradition, actually does often include medication. Truly "old fashioned" therapy would be talking your problems out with friends, family and spiritual/moral leaders, etc. This whole therapy trip is a twentieth century social invention, and I get really annoyed when people forget there was ever any other state of affairs. My personal belief is that people have come to rely on this magical "therapy" waaaaay too much. However, folks coming home from war with PTSD probably do, in most cases, really truly have a need for professional psychological help.
Whoever said Ecstasy can cause you drop dead on contact should really look into the FACTS.
Nice of y'all to give Ariel props for pointing out the hypocricy, but I was actually the one to use that word.
Look, I am PMSing, my family has gone crazy and my mother is being her typical asshole self today, so I am feeling very bitchy. With that said, some of these comments are so off base. It seems like folks are more interested in agreeing with the original comment than actually thinking through the issues.
"X can kill people on the spot." What the hell is this? Are you a medical expert? Can you cite to research studies proving that MDMA induces immediate death in some patients, even when the manufacture of the drug is regulated and the dosage is controlled by a prescribing physician? I wish you would explain that either you don't know what the fuck you are talking about or that you are just repeating rumors that you have heard. Research. It's a good thing. Look into it. You might find that MDMA has an interesting and fairly innocuous history. The only thing stupider than this comment is the fact that it was posted twice.
"It is a fallacy to believe drugs are a healty way to deal with PTSD." It's an innacurate usage of the word "fallacy" to insert it in a sentence in this fashion. The belief itself is the fallacy, not the act of believing it, get it? Again, who the fuck died and made you an expert on PTSD? Are you a licensed psychiatrist? A psychologist? Licensed family counselor? Didn't think so. So who are you to dispense professional medical opinions regarding what type of treatment is appropriate for different types of disorders?
"What they need is old fashioned therapy." I have a shocking truth to reveal to you---"old fashioned therapy" is an oxymoron. See, that good old therapy is really a development seen within the last century or so, hardly a mainstay of human history. It's sort of a post-industrial social experiment, if you will. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that whoever posted this comment probably doesn't know anything about PTSD or available treatment options for PTSD. Such an individual really has no place commenting on how this disorder should be handled. It's sort of insulting to those with PTSD who are taking medications for it to impose your ignorant opinion on them. And I know I've basically said all this once before, but I really really can't stand crappy logic.
That's a decent segue into this whole overdramatization of soldiers with PTSD. This is probably the first time since Vietnam that we actually do have a lot of military personnel coming home with PTSD. (I don't know for certain, but I am making an *educated guess*.)I don't think it's fair to imply that this has been the usual state of affairs. We've been officially at war for 2 years now, and that means we've had a huge number of soldiers actually in combat zones for 2 years now. I think this is likely a 2 year old problem, right? The trauma to the soldiers starts when the bombing/shooting starts, correct?
We can agree then that the military, for the most part, discharges people who are fairly well adjusted, can't we? But, as they say, war is hell, and some soldiers will suffer the effects in the form of PTSD. Is is really fair to characterize these people as "drowning their sorrows in artificial uppers." (By the way, "artificial uppers" is probably redundant.) Aside from the fact that MDMA really isn't exactly an "upper", this is almost a slanderous statement. Are mental health professionals just coddling these wimps and enabling them to "drown" their "sorrows"? Does the collective opinion of professionals in this field mean nothing to you?
If I was a person with PTSD, or a soldier with it, I would be really offended by this comment. Calling it "drowning your sorrows" to seek professional help and prescription drugs to help with a psychological problem only feeds the stigma already associated with the mentally ill. Shame on these thoughtless comments.
NOT cool. But you know, it was MDMA before it was X -- that is, it was used a long time ago in therapy for that very purpose (to loosen up emotional inhibitions and promote emotional expression).
I think that using MDMA for that is lazy, just like I think that most use of drugs is a lazy way to feel better (emotionally).
This in addition to the (well-known!) physical dangers of MDMA use. But hey, the U.S.o'A. obviously doesn't care much about these kids anyway ...
And no, it doesn't cause anyone to drop dead. That's coke. I know, because I have the enzyme deficiency that would have caused me to have nearly immediate and fatal heart failure if I'd ever been stupid enough to do it. MDMA causes damage to the central nervous system when done long-term, though. It ain't something to mess around with.
Gee. That's fascinating. Did you know that lots of things cause damage to the central nervous system, things we all live with and around every day? So to say that MDMA shares this property is hardly saying anything at all....
It's "lazy" to use psychoactive medications to help you feel emotionally better? Wow...Tell that to any mental health professional and that sound you hear will be them laughing their ass off at your general ignorance....Again, who died and made you an expert? What empirical analysis have you engaged in to test this "laziness" hypothesis?...Mental health issues are very real and often very treatable, sometimes using medications either temporarily or on a long term basis. Bottom line is this-a person who realizes they have some issues, goes to a doctor for professional help and then takes his or her professional advice and begins treatment with medication has taken several steps to address his or her problems. This is far from being "lazy." Anyone who would make such a comment is not only insensitive to mental health issues, but is in danger of looking like a real asshole. A stupid asshole, no less. You do realize that human beings have been ingesting various chemical compounds in an effort to benefit from the effects on their physiology since time immemorial? Were you "lazy" the last time you popped a couple Tylenol for a headache? Give me a fucking break, you judgmental twit.
Many chemical substances have dramatic or long term effects. That does not mean they have no potential to benefit people. Chemotherapy drugs are fairly toxic to the system. Does that mean no one should ever take them? Medical decisions are sometimes about weighing the costs and benefits of different courses of action.
I challenge ANYONE who has noted MDMA's oh-so-dangerousness to lead me to ANY recent, reliable, independent study backing up your doomsday claims. I think you've all been brainwashed by America's Drug War. Y'all need to think for yourselves a little bit and question the sources of your information, while seeking sources of your own. Regurgitating facts you've heard without doing any digging around on your own is.....LAZY.
Cgarrett:
"South Carolina scientists behind the trial think the feelings of emotional closeness reported by those taking the drug could help the soldiers talk about their experiences to therapists."
I wouldn't call this "drowning their sorrows." Sounds more like facilitating "good old-fashioned therapy."
I think mdma should have never been scheduled as a class 1. if you never taken the drug then you should have no right to a opinion on it. our soldiers get a littile taste of what hell might be. EDUCATED former us army soldier(2000-2007).
some history
Over the next ten months however, the facts about MDMA were heard by Judge Francis Young, who presided over the hearings. After receiving and considering all the evidence admitted during the hearings, Judge Young issued his findings and recommendation on May 22, 1986. In a comprehensive opinion, Judge Young found that MDMA did not meet a single one of the three criteria necessary for placement in Schedule I. Judge Young reported that MDMA had a safe and accepted medical use in the US under medical supervision. Furthermore, he found that the evidence failed to establish that MDMA had a high potential for abuse. Based on his thorough examination of the evidence, Judge Young recommended that MDMA be placed in Schedule III, which would allow doctors to use it in therapy and prescribe it, while still keeping it unavailable to the public at large.
sound like John Lawn had no clue and was a pawn to make the presdient ronald regan gain popularity votes with the drug campiaghn. or he was just paid off to keep it on hte black market
Over the next ten months however, the facts about MDMA were heard by Judge Francis Young, who presided over the hearings. After receiving and considering all the evidence admitted during the hearings, Judge Young issued his findings and recommendation on May 22, 1986. In a comprehensive opinion, Judge Young found that MDMA did not meet a single one of the three criteria necessary for placement in Schedule I. Judge Young reported that MDMA had a safe and accepted medical use in the US under medical supervision. Furthermore, he found that the evidence failed to establish that MDMA had a high potential for abuse. Based on his thorough examination of the evidence, Judge Young recommended that MDMA be placed in Schedule III, which would allow doctors to use it in therapy and prescribe it, while still keeping it unavailable to the public at large.
Post a Comment
<< Home