From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Well, I'm not used to write on Wikis, so I don't know if this is the way I should start a talk (on formatation terms I mean. I'm writing on a blanck page). What happens here is that, specially important for a site with such a name, this article was written based on misconceptions.

I mean, first of all, MDMA is not a dancing drug. Of course, you can dance using it, as you could dance drinking Orange Juice. However, what happens to cause that "crazyness" on people who use ecstasy is not the MDMA, but the other drugs usually found mixed on street ecstasy, like MDA, ketamine and so on. Pure MDMA ain't strong on that effect, and it's wrong to threat two different things as the same. Street "weed" may be addictive, even the weed itself not being such.

Other point interesting to figure out is that the article says it's "far from healthy physically". What the hell would be "healthy" to you? I mean, MDMA is not organic quinoa cooked without salt, but it's far from "far from healthy". If the user ain't a complete fucktard, there shouldn't be any major physical health problems, nor now, nor in the long term. It doesn't kill one's braincells, only destroys axons which will be reconstructed (unless said person keep using it often, but then, said person would be a fucktard). So, in fact, unlike the article says, MDMA is more dangerous from a psychologic point of view than from a physical. If one does have tendences to psychiatric disorders and then use it on a wrong context, it turns really dangerous.

Of course, I could simply edit it, but I'd have to rewrite almost the whole article, and I think it wouldn't be a polite action, since I could simply put on discussion before, instead of just deleting other one's work.

PS.: Sorry for my bad english, I'm brazilian. (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

MDMA's reputation as a dance drug comes from the nuttiness of 'Year Zero', aka 1988, when Britain -rapidly followed by Western Europe- went nuts about house/techno. It's a great drug, and I'd recommend sensible use of it to anyone. I suppose the definition of 'sensible' is subjective, however. --Scherben (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)