Hacker News Reader

Comment by ClassyJacket | Hacker News Reader

I have no doubts, and I'm so thankful of the research that MAPS is doing. I haven't even been thru any trauma and MDMA pulled me out of depression and greatly reduced my anxiety. It was an absolute miracle for me. It disgusts me that the stuff is illegal while cigarettes and alcohol are not. AMA.

View on HN

I went through a similar experience. About 10 years ago I was in a bit of a funk and depressed, anxious etc. and further I think I was in denial about the problem. I was almost completely unproductive for about 6 months.

Went out one weekend and had a mid-range dose of MDMA and with the afterglow in the days later I felt like a new person, complete with a spring in my step.

It felt like I had been hoarding a lot of useless stuff in my mind and never being comfortable in my head, while MDMA was the clear-out I needed.

I wouldn't advocate for each depressed or anxious person to try it as a cure-all, but I definitely advocate for more research (and have donated to the cause) and greatly reducing the stigma around the drug

"It felt like I had been hoarding a lot of useless stuff in my mind and never being comfortable in my head, while MDMA was the clear-out I needed."

I know exactly what you mean. You hit the nail on your head. It's like "Oh, why do I spend so much time worrying about little things". It just grabs the shit and dumps it out. It's the greatest perspective on life and love and the best way to reorder your priorities.

I'm wondering what you consider a mid-range dose.

1mg / kg (or just a little more)

I only later learned more about dosages and found that the downsides are at higher (1.5mg/kg+) doses and with long re-dosing

I would barely feel anything at that dose and it would be incredibly short-spanned; more like cocaine. It's literally 75% of the dose for ~20% of the effects.

Besides, if you would have read the article - they are mentioning dosages of 125mg.

I would also be confident enough to say that MDMA is not as linear in dosages against body weight and _almost_surely_ it depends way more on your digestive than your body mass.

PS: to be clear, I did this with people who were multiples of my own weight (68kg) and incredibly petite ladies who were smaller than me. Dosage has little correlation with the effects they would get.

I would suggest the quality of the drug matters far more than the digestive system. And that the difference between first-time experience and hundredth-time (which I don't think is a particularly healthy number of times to hit) is quite large.

Well, I would not suggest that since in most of the settings I had participated, people would be taking the powder from the same source.

So I’ve got a feeling that your point comes from reading some info on the internet, rather than your own experience.

I meant that you're in no position to cast judgement on the guys dosage on his first use, especially since you have no idea whether he got very high purity stuff from the dark web or a crushed-up pill, or any idea at all really: and I bet that if you're taking such high doses, half of it is likely speed.

I can't believe I'm saying this on HN, looks like it's finally just another subreddit: I have plenty experience, sure.

I don't mean to be rude, but not only is 1mg not a 'mid-range' dose, but it's not even enough to get effects from the drug. 100mg is ~average for a small/beginner dose (usually cost $5-10), could that be what your thinking?

Source: My own and my friends' experiences.

Edit: my apologies, I didn't see the /kg part of your equation. After doing the math, yes that seems like a reasonable beginner/small dose.

Do you mean 100mg / kg, like the parent was talking about? 100mg total would be roughly 1mg / kg for my body weight.

1mg per KG of bodyweight

Given the high individual variance, dosing psychedelic substances by bodyweight isn't usually considered very effective at estimating the final effect.

Always start with a low/threshold dose first and go from there (this might be less practical for MDMA, where you want to limit repeated exposure).

Really? If anything I would say that the rule of thumb (anecdotal) is 1 mg / lb.

Smaller girls I knew would be fine with 100mg doses and big dudes would need about 200mg or so. Most people would do 125mg - 150mg.

Alcohol in particular is notorious for making depression worse.

https://www.quitalcohol.com/alcohol-abuse/alcohol-and-suicid...

Cannabis can make underlying mental health problems worse. I guess it's important to note people should not self-medicate with any drug.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=...

Check the links you posted: the association is found in children and those with latent schizophrenic disorders. We also know it is not associated with the causality of schizophrenia, just onset.

Causal association has been ruled out in the case of depression, and in regards to anxiety, the primary mental system it is involved with, the interaction goes both ways, with cost vs benefit unclear and academically unsettled.

If alcohol was brand new, it likely would be a scheduled drug and very well controlled.

It’s only allowed because it’s very old and well integrated to some societies.

Fermentation of grains and fruit is a millennia-old way of preserving food that would otherwise spoil, so it isn’t without merit. The problem today is that alcohol is available so easily and so cheaply in many countries. In Germany, (some) beer costs less than regular milk per liter and hard liquor is available very cheaply as well.

I have seen people that destroyed themselves using alcohol, but most people can deal with it just fine. That’s also the problem when trying to regulate it, as it is not just a drug but a cultural thing in many countries. I have a hard time imagining Germany without its beer culture or France or Italy without their wine culture.

Fermentation and alcohol for consumption are quite different, as you’re probably aware. My kombucha is technically fermented, but good luck getting drunk on it. There is also a sizable difference between more traditional forms of alcohol and cheap high proof spirits harm wise.

Plus since this is a counterfactual, we don't actually need alcohol for preservation anymore. We have refrigeration.

The bit about Germany and beer is merely observational bias. You can’t imagine those countries differently because that’s the way things are for your lifetime. I’m sure in an alternative universe there’s someone talking about German weed culture, or German poppy culture.

Either way, alcohol clearly isn’t going away, and trying to make it go away is foolish. The point is that we’ve normalized a very dangerous compound due to historical reasons, and it’s fascinating.

Sure not all fermentation produces alcohol, but many fermenting organisms do.

And of course it’s observational bias, I said that I personally can’t imagine how the culture of these countries would be without alcohol, though I’m sure people would get along just fine (we don’t need alcohol to survive after all). Just saying that not everything needs to be banned, otherwise we might as well ban sugar and salt as they probably kill just as many (or more) people as alcohol.

I never said it needed to be banned, I’m saying that if we didn’t have a long history with it we probably wouldn’t allow it.

Well, sounds like allowing it was the right decision: https://outline.com/x5EAJE

Again, you're kind of missing the point of this counter-factual.

Well, also the fact that you can make it in a bathtub.

I agree that trying to ban alcohol would be a huge mistake. But to be fair on the feasibility of a hypothetical ban, America has spent almost half a century trying to prevent its citizens from growing a plant.

Part of it is that the biochemical processes involved in producing ethanol are so straightforward that they are undergone in almost every fruit bowl and refrigerator, with or without anyone's knowledge.

It certainly seems like that when you are stuck in a deep, dark hole, an altered consciousness might be the best chance to find some motivation. Like realizing that there is good in the world and you can be a part of it.

MDMA brings some health risks that shouldn't be viewed lightly, though. Be careful.

MAPS is one of the few organizations in the USA legally permitted by the FDA & DEA to conduct clinical research into using schedule 1 substances as medicines to assist psychotherapists and other medical professionals. If you genuinely believe that psychedelics hold potential help improve mental health, MAPS is the organization that bringing these ideas to clinical trial.

In addition to clinical research they also do a lot of public education on harm reduction and safety regarding psychedelics, so they’re an excellent resource for people who have questions or could possibly benefit from participating in a clinical trial.

Am very interested in hearing more about the methods you used. Did you just take MDMA recreationally and your depression got better, or did you do it together with (or at the same time as?) therapy? How many times/over how long time? Thank you

Recreationally in a pretty stereotypical way. Out in places I was able to meet new people primarily, but it's also very therapeutic to do with a loved one or good friends.

Generally about 200mg in a night, usually at once or 100mg twice an hour apart. That was actually quite alot to start on when you don't have a tolerance (I'm about 60kg), you could definitely start with 100mg and get something out of it. Sometimes I'd do more, sometimes less.

I was able to notice the lowered depression after two or maybe three doses within the span of about six weeks or less. No therapy, except the natural therapy of feeling very comfortable with people and being able to talk to them more honestly. Definitely had some therapy-like conversations while on it.

It felt like I was able to let go of a bunch of stupid stuff and start focusing on things that were more important, especially people. I became less materialistic, started socializing more, and had more confidence in myself and a better outlook on the future. I also seem to enjoy music more even after weeks without drugs, which is nice.

Not the poster, but I did it recreationally and got the benefits the poster is talking about. I've done it since then, each time benefiting, but nothing has really been as noticable as the first two times, the second probably being a couple of months after the first. I was quite shocked at the difference myself - this was a bit before I started seeing research results on MDMA.

And I'd like to clarify: Basically cured. I mean, I'm still a cynical person many times, but I don't have the constant worry (save for once a month, monthly hormones suck). I'm much more positive about life for the most part.

> I have no doubts

This is a big red flag. You absolutely should have doubts. Our brains are very complicated and poorly understood, and psychoactive drugs are extremely risky. If you really have no doubts you should take a big step back and realize that you are probably wrong about most things and everyone else is too.

What is your dose/frequency?

I've experienced with a lot of drugs, and it's true that MDMA has some seriously beneficial effects in terms of turning around depression, anxiety, introversion, etc. However I've never used these or other (hard) drugs more than periodically and recreationally.

> depression, anxiety, introversion, etc.

That's a whole array of pathologies and symptoms, for which there is no single pharmacological solution.

Many comments in this thread are over-standardising mental illness as well as the (supervised administration) therapy presented in the linked article, which is about much more than dosage and frequency. On top of that, the patient in the article expresses many specificities that are unlikely to be matched by most patients.

This is, to me, the first negative aspect of banning a drug -- it suppressed 99% of the potential evidence base and replaces it with poor 'SWIM-based' anecdotes.

I wouldn't agree that your evidence base is replaced with anecdotes (not sure what you mean by SWIM), rather since the drug has been outlawed, all you have left are anecdotes. People will use and describe the effects of drugs with or without the law's discretion, and I would imagine the decriminalization-party should be thankful for the experimentations.

> since the drug has been outlawed, all you have left are anecdotes

That's what I meant: apologies if my wording led you to read me differently.

Did you try treatment for depression and anxiety first?

Cigarettes should absolutely be illegal.

Yeah, there really is no moral excuse for any restriction (or even tax) on the purchase of chemicals which are broadly safe for consumption, completely generic, and of considerable medicinal value. I am convinced that there are more people who would begin to benefit from unprescribed private self-medication with MDMA than who would begin to suffer suffer harm.

> I am convinced that there are more people who would begin to benefit from unprescribed private self-medication with MDMA than who would begin to suffer suffer harm.

conviction |kənˈvɪkʃ(ə)n| 2 a firmly held belief or opinion

belief |bɪˈliːf| an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

opinion |əˈpɪnjən| 1 a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

Given that I did not use the word "conviction", what exactly are you getting at here.

I stand corrected, indeed: the OED avoids defining 'to be convinced' as 'to hold a conviction' -- which is what I read in your post: absolute but fundamentally baseless certainty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com