Calling MDMA "Ecstasy" seems like bad journalism. While Ecstasy should contain MDMA it often has all kinds of other things in it.
Nobody would ever allow the use of Ecstasy as a treatment drug.
Nobody would ever allow the use of Ecstasy as a treatment drug.
Source: Don't worry about it.
In the 90's you'd buy "ecstasy" which theoretically contained MDMA as the sole active ingredient but likely did not. Various cheaper actives and inactives were added to make more money for sellers as you'd expect in an underground market so the term became less trusted.
Enter "molly" which implies a more pure product containing only MDMA but still with the potential to be bogus or cut with something else. As with "ecstasy" the only way to tell was to test it.
Regardless of the semantics of illicit drug slang, I just hate when purportedly "serious" pieces use slang terms for the drugs in question. Same as when they use "pot" or "marijuana" in place of cannabis. I can't imagine a serious article that discusses medical studies of alcoholic beverages referring to their "booze" and "hooch" studies.
> Perceiving a business opportunity, Michael Clegg, the Southwest distributor for the Boston Group, started his own "Texas Group" backed financially by Texas friends. In 1981, Clegg had coined "Ecstasy" as a slang term for MDMA to increase its marketability.
Mind you, this was before it became illegal.
Much like Marijuana, that stupid (but successful) name was probably one of the main reasons it did become so popular, and then illegal, in the first place.
Also, call me an old timer, but I refuse to call it Molly
That's the point. Ecstacy does not have a precise definition. MDMA does. Given this is a trial, it should be labeled what it is.
Ecstasy comes as a pressed pill (presumably containing some MDMA, with the possibility of other drugs/adulterants and fillers).
The only way to know if they were taking pure MDMA in either case is to test it:
Potentially NSFW: https://dancesafe.org/product/complete-set-of-all-8-testing-...
Reagent tests ala what Dancesafe sells are great harm reduction, if the pill fails the test, the pill certainly has 0% MDMA. However, they will not be able to identify that you are taking pure MDMA. I imagine any MDMA+other substance mixture will flag positive. In addition there are probably a few non-MDMA substances that will false-positive that reagent test.
There's an organization out there (https://www.ecstasydata.org/) that does GCMS analysis of pills, the data on what they find (in terms of ratio of substances) is public. So if you want a bit of a sampling of what type of things get sold as "molly" / "ecstasy" you can look there.
To clarify, by "pure MDMA", I did not mean that the substance is 100℅ pure MDMA, but rather that it does not contain other active adulterants.
With reagent tests you can be reasonably sure that a given pill does or does not (most likely) contain only MDMA and (most likely) contain no other (common) adulterants.
If you want to be sure on the actual amount of MDMA and be absolutely certain it contains nothing else, then you absolutely need a lab test.
(GCMS doesn't actually cost much to run, places just charge a lot for it.)
What if your reliable supplier was sold cyanide from an unreliable supplier? Better one of you is wise enough to test it.
However, you can find Ecstasy pills that contain nothing but MDMA and inactive fillers/binders.
If you don't like Molly. Please just call it MDMA. Not Ecstasy.
That means there IS a definition of Ecstacy, the meaning hasn't changed. There are just lots of bad pills in circulation. That's why you should always check pillreports.net before using any untested stuff.
Yes I was expecting "Molly".