Is there any evidence of MDMA making users better people, other than self reports?
For each individual who says psychedelics have made them a better person, there are hundreds who make the same claim about religion. And I think we can all agree that the risk of biological side effects is much lower with religion.
If I were going to follow your advice and try MDMA, shouldn't I follow my father's advice and try religion first?
You only have to try MDMA once. Its acute effects will last around six hours. I've met many people who have attested to the profound effect it's had on their lives.
Religion is a bit more of a commitment. And, for it to have the desired effects, often requires you to change what you believe about the world.
> Is there any evidence of MDMA making users better people, other than self reports?
Generally, no. You can't become better by taking a drug, but they're not talking about bettering themselves. They're talking about healing. If your intention is to better yourself with the aid of psychedelic drugs[1], you'll only get out what you put in, and psychedelics will mostly only inspire you to put forth the effort. edit: You still have to work at improving yourself through other means.
> For each individual who says psychedelics have made them a better person, there are hundreds who make the same claim about religion.
Well, not that many people are willing to try psychedelics.
> And I think we can all agree that the risk of biological side effects is much lower with religion.
Every year more people are killed in the name of religion than by psychedelics. Psychedelics kill noone. Their LD50 is usually too high.
> If I were going to follow your advice and try MDMA, shouldn't I follow my father's advice and try religion first?
Sure, but please try more than one religion, and check out philosophy too. You can choose whether or not to try MDMA in the same way that you can choose whether or not to go sky diving.
[1] This is not an inherently misguided idea, but in uncontrolled environments, psychedelics can be quite dangerous.
> Psychedelics kill noone. Their LD50 is usually too high.
Perhaps, for pure 'traditional' psychedelics like LSD. (I'm not sure if there are any known direct toxicity-related deaths from it, including doses ~1000x typical). MDMA, on the other hand, can cause fatal hyperthermia or serotonin syndrome at ~10x typical dose.
Some of the 'novel psychoactive substances' gaining recent popularity due to their ambiguous legal status have much, much worse safety profiles. The 2C-x-NBOMe family is especially troublesome in that regard.
Also, consider exactly what the 50 in LD50 means.
And we won't even consider 'drug-related' fatalities, since it's even harder to find unbiased reporting on them as a class.
It might be a very small number (and I believe it is), but it ain't zero.
>
Perhaps, for pure 'traditional' psychedelics like LSD. (I'm not sure if there are any known direct toxicity-related deaths from it, including doses ~1000x typical). MDMA, on the other hand, can cause fatal hyperthermia or serotonin syndrome at ~10x typical dose.
There is the elephant that died after a massive overdose of LSD. I'm mot sure if the LSD killed it or the exertion it went through after being given the LSD killed it.
There is a case where 8 people snorted two lines of pure LSD each thinking it was cocaine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129381/pdf/west...). All survived with no lasting effects, although they were fortunate to receive emergency medical care within 15 minutes after administration. 5 were comatose and 3 were in respiratory arrest, but unlike the elephant none experienced convulsions.
I'm going to mostly point out that although this is an appealing idea: that we only get out of ourselves what we put in/etc./etc. there's no reason for it to be true. In fact, I'd expect that for some drugs, it's probably not true: if you're talking about a substance that has dramatic, longer term effects on the functioning of seratonin/dopamine systems in the brain.
Moving away from the kind of nebulous 'better person' realm and into a slightly more measurable/agreed upon "normal person" realm, it's patently untrue for those with nonstandard brain chemistry (and completely backed by scientific+medical consensus--drugs are a baseline treatment for bipolar disorder or schizophrenia), and so I think there's no reason why drug use should not improve the experience/behaviors of people with what our society has deemed 'normal' or 'normal-enough' brain chemistry. I don't think there's something so different about people with what are considered diseases with a larger genetic component which have lasted for centuries: they are likely caused by a combination of otherwise beneficial traits coming together in a less than beneficial way.
Also, since the diseases I mentioned often do involve long term maintenance medication taken on a daily basis (such that there's always some amount of it in a patient's bloodstream), I think it's worth also mentioning that there are treatments for otherwise drug resistant depression such as electroconvulsive therapy which are effective when used every few months or only once or twice. I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that there are likely compounds that have impacts on people's brain chemistry that last longer than the life of the drug in the bloodstream.
I'd like to note, though, that I'm not advocating going and taking psychedelic drugs in an attempt to better oneself. They're compounds which have debatable (and unresearched) longer term effects on those who imbibe them, and which have fairly established negative impact on people who take them and are at risk for developing a serious mental illness. (family history, etc.) I think that the appropriate thing to do is to pressure govt. and push society to allow for actual, well founded scientific research into the matter. (I say this as someone who has taken a psychedelic drug once, and wouldn't attribute any long term betterment or changes in personality/etc. to it. However, as someone fairly familiar with mental illness and its treatment, I think that it's reasonable to assert that drugs with strong impacts on brain chemistry--and certainly on the functioning of the seratonin system, which is often implicated in depression, bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorders might have beneficial uses in treatment of some individuals, and perhaps betterment of those with more 'normal' brain chemistry.)
> I'm going to mostly point out that although this is an appealing idea: that we only get out of ourselves what we put in/etc./etc. there's no reason for it to be true.
A) Meditation takes concerted effort (by definition).
B) Meditaiton has been shown to increase empathy: http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/060608.htm
Conclusion) You can put effort into improving yourself and improve yourself (in this case: become more empathetic toward others).
> They're compounds which have debatable (and unresearched) longer term effects on those who imbibe them,
> and which have fairly established negative impact on people who take them and are at risk for developing a serious mental illness. (family history, etc.)
Yes. If you have a family history of schizophrenia (or other severe mental illnesses), you shouldn't try psychedelic drugs. They can precipitate schizophrenic episodes, psychotic breaks, and the like.
Other than that, I totally agree. I was just trying to clearly and succinctly discount the enlightenment-in-a-pill attitude.
Allow me to preface this by saying I think we are in agreement, but I want to make sure we understand each other.
GP was just pointing out there is no law of nature that says the things worth having require effort. Your meditation anecdote is correct, but does not address the comment. There are things which are very good for us, but take little personal effort to attain (antibiotics are a good example, to continue with the drug theme...)
I believe meditation is an important, effortful aspect to understanding myself and how I relate to the world. I also believe that the psychedelic experiences I have had have worked in a similar, complementary manner. In either case, the amount of effort it took is not necessarily connected with the value received.
(Also, FWIW, not all meditation is concerted effort. Do you mean mindfulness? I believe Zen meditation advises that you let go of everything and do not focus; the blank slate principle and all that.)
I don't think I could "try religion" like I can try a drug. I can't just make myself believe in things that I think are impossible and without true belief, religion is just social interaction.
Depends on what kind of religion you mean. I'll occasionally pop in to Zen or Insight meditation sessions, and I've definitely found them helpful. You'd be hard pressed to say that Zen isn't a religion, but since it's not theistic, I don't think belief is particularly necessary for the experience.
You might also check out Sam Harris's latest book. A noted atheist, he's recently written a book called, "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion". I haven't read it, but I heard him on the radio last night, and it sounds like it is aimed squarely at your concern.
For each individual who says psychedelics have made them a better person, there are hundreds who make the same claim about religion. And I think we can all agree that the risk of biological side effects is much lower with religion.
If I were going to follow your advice and try MDMA, shouldn't I follow my father's advice and try religion first?