Hacker News Reader

Comment by lostgame | Hacker News Reader

I do not recommend this. MDMA is a much better experience socially than by your lonesome - from a ton of personal experience.

You would be better suited to a solo mushroom or LSD experience, coming from someone who spent her 20s doing such things. YMMV, but just from almost a decade of experience, there are much, much better substances for solo healing experiences.

I do not recommend any illegal substances but would not condone the use of MDMA in the appropriate social setting for the purposes of personal healing as I have had positive experiences myself with it. I have also seen people take it way, way too far. Again - YMMV.

View on HN

I would have agreed with you two years ago. I've taken MDMA socially countless times and would have thought it entirely pointless to take alone, but my experiences taking it therapeutically - first with a sitter and then totally alone - have changed my view on this entirely.

I actually have very little interest in taking MDMA socially anymore. How I see it is that as unconscious material comes to the surface, you need to be present with it or it doesn't really get processed. If you're distracted by your awesome friends there is just less space and energy for that, and what happens is you end up bringing all this shit to the surface, NOT engaging with it, and then coming down and it's still right up at the surface. This is in my experience why the hangovers suck so much. After a therapeutic session I feel drained but never hung over and depressed like I have after some social experiences.

Everyone is different of course but I say don't knock it til you try it!

I've had many social experiences as well. Would you recommend solo with a sitter or completely solo?

I've found during techno shows I did spend a good amount of time dancing with my eyes closed, trying to dig in. But that wasn't at all the focus... so maybe a true solo experience would be better.

Also, did you listen to music solo? Or is that also a distraction.

I'd suggest going solo rather than w/ a sitter honestly - it can be intimidating the first time but I think even the best-intentioned sitters can bring their own hangups into the mix and get in the way. Perhaps a good middle-ground would be to have someone who knows what you're doing that you can call if you need to?

I think there are definitely parallels with a solo session and dancing w/ eyes closed at a rave - the same process really but as you say at a dance event there are a ton of distractions, and less space for really releasing when you need to. For instance, shaking has been a big part of the release for me, but it would be hard to do that at a public event w/o people being weirded out - they'd probably think you took too many drugs and need medical attention.

Re: music, yes I always listen to music, but it's been tough to find the right stuff sometimes. I have read that some folks prefer silence as well, so I'd suggest trying both and seeing what works - might be different in different sessions as well :)

Do you have questions/a general direction set up beforehand?

Nothing about M is intimidating, since I've done it many times before. The most intimidating thing is to focus on the task at hand the whole time. I'm so used to talking to people, texting people close to me, thinking about others etc.

My biggest fear is that revert to having my own rave. Playing music and texting other people.

Haha yeah you really have to commit to doing the work. Your mind will likely try to distract you as uncomfortable emotions come to the surface, so you may be tempted to text people etc.

That said, going into it with intention goes a long way. For the days/weeks prior to a session I usually keep a document going and add things that come up. For example, an interaction w/ my wife or a colleague or friend may be difficult and bring up some tension that I'd like to work through, so I'll note that down. When the session comes I'll have a general idea of the areas in life where I'm feeling stuck, so I'll go into it with the intention of working through those.

During one session, the first time I mixed LSD, at one point I was thinking to myself about how the combination was clearly not a good idea since it wasn't working, and reciting in my head how I would describe this to people afterwords. Then, it occurred to me that it's not working because instead of being present with the feelings that are coming up I am distracting myself by thinking of how I'll describe how it didn't work. Once I realized this I was able to go deeper and there was release :)

I'd strongly recommend reading the book as well before you try it, there is a lot of good advice in there for how to prepare and structure a session. As several folks have pointed out, the language is super intense at times, but try to get past that (it's mostly in the beginning chapters anyways) and it's well worth the read.

I second what you said. Psychedelics, mushrooms specifically, are completely unaddictive, but the same thing isn't true of MDMA.

While I do believe that MDMA does have therapeutic benefits, it is amphetamine, a stimulant with strong euphoric properties, which is why it's commonly used as a party drug. It's a very "moreish" drugs, and it's pretty easy to end up on a drug binge that lasts all night, only then to have an uncomfortable comedown and to feel like shit for multiple days afterwards. The people I know who party on MDMA, they basically do it every weekend and can't seem to stop. I used to be like that myself, and it took me a few years to learn moderation. I fell in love with that drug, and it became a problem.

Also, while mushrooms can be very introspective, MDMA is very much a prosocial drug, and you are completely missing out on the experience if you do it alone. I would save that drug for parties (in moderate amounts), and for psychotherapy, if you have a therapist that is open to that.

> it is amphetamine

That's like saying DNA is sugar. But yeah, getting all the oxytocin alone is kinda wasteful.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-019-0569-3

The A in MDMA stands for Amphetamine, and if you look at drawings of the molecules, you'll see that MDMA is basically D-Amphetamine with extra stuff attached to it.

All amphetamines release dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin, just in different ratios. D-Amphetamine is heavier on the dopamine and NE, MDMA is heavier on the serotonin, but it's still a dopamine releaser, which contributes to its addictive qualities. What MDMA does, neurochemically speaking, is not that far from what methamphetamine does. Meth is much more addictive for a number of reasons, including the way people typically consume it (smoking vs oral), but MDMA is no toy.

The D in DNA stands for deoxyribose, a sugar. This is not how chemistry/biology works. The extra stuff matters. That's why I linked the article, as it speaks about dex and MDMA having distinct pharmacology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituted_methylenedioxyphen...

subgroup of...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituted_amphetamine

subgroup of...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituted_phenethylamine

If you go all the way down you will find the natural precursor amino acids to a range of neurotransmitters, and ... they will look very similar to amphetamine.

It is also worth noting that street economy MDMA is frequently cut with stimulants, as the pure MDMA effects are not well suited for partying. E pills often have 20-30% MDA, caffeine, amphetamine or meth in them.

Also equating dopamine release with addiction is also not very precise. There are different dopamine systems in the brain. Usually it's assumed the addiction potential of MDMA rather stemming from the frequent over-exciting experiences dulling every day life. People are chasing the intense party life vastly enhanced by drugs, not exactly the drugs themselves. Many MDMA addicts limit their consume to the weekend and suffer through the boringness of work week; usually it doesn't spiral out of control like with other drugs. For most people it's not a every day kind of stimulant drug like cocaine, amphetamine or meth.

> The D in DNA stands for deoxyribose, a sugar. This is not how chemistry/biology works.

I don't know if you can really digest DNA and get calories out of it, but the thing is, methamphetamine and MDMA both bind to the serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake transporters and produce release of monoamines. I would bet you that they are also deactivated by the same enzymes, etc. It's not a coincidence. They behave similarly because they are (very) similar molecules. Not all molecules that are similar behave similarly, but they often do. That shouldn't be so surprising if you have a background in chemistry.

> the pure MDMA effects are not well suited for partying.

I know many people who party on pure MDMA. The effect varies from person to person. Some people find pure MDMA very relaxing, others find it very stimulating.

> People are chasing the intense party life vastly enhanced by drugs, not exactly the drugs themselves.

As someone who has experienced this first hand, I would say that things are muddier than you think. Stimulants affect your reward pathways. They slowly change your behavior so that you can get that dopamine hit again. It can sneak up on you without you really realizing. You think you love partying, but at some point, you might just realize, you have a lot of friends who do drugs, and you've gradually restructured your life so that you can do drugs more often.

> Many MDMA addicts limit their consume to the weekend and suffer through the boringness of work week; usually it doesn't spiral out of control like with other drugs. For most people it's not a every day kind of stimulant drug like cocaine, amphetamine or meth.

I think there's two aspects to this:

1. MDMA depletes serotonin reserves. If you abuse it during the weekend, you get diminishing returns. It's kind of self-limiting in that way. With cocaine and amphetamine, you can increase the dose and keep getting a strong euphoric effect, you can push things much farther, go on binges that last several days without sleeping.

2. The culture is different. There's a whole subculture of people who party on weekends. That subculture is different from that of meth users. Most of the people who can afford to go out to parties and clubs have day jobs and lives outside of partying. Most people are disciplined enough to throw their lives away and use drugs with some amount of moderation. I also know many people who manage to take cocaine, ketamine and speed on weekends and live a pretty normal life the rest of the time.

People who take meth are often poor, even homeless and in dire circumstances. They're looking to maximize cost-efficiency, get the best bang for their buck in terms of getting a high, which is why they inject or smoke it. Kind of like an alcoholic might go for drinking pure, cheap whisky. People do that because they are desperate and hopeless :(

Some good points. I just wanted to say that equating MDMA with amphetamine is wrong. Lots of things work on the dopaminergic systems, but that alone doesn't mean amphetamine has the same addiction profile as nicotine or cocaine, much less MDMA. LSD interacts with dopamine receptors too, but it's really not addictive at all.

I think amphetamine's action is much more affecting the anticipation of reward than reward itself. The selective dopaminergic effect is why it works for ADHD, but nicotine and caffeine do not.

Abuse comes with finding ways to spike the system and causing dysregulation, e.g. secondary dopaminergic effects across the brain. I think MDMA usually isn't consumed in a way getting a high from a sudden spike, it isn't smoked, injected and probably overall seldomly snorted; I think it's mostly taken orally.

That's also why people smoke meth. It's not about efficiency, but the rapid uptake is essential for a certain type of high. E.g. nicotine patches aren't addictive. For nicotine to become hugely addictive you need the rush from rapid uptake via inhalation in addition to MAOIs found in tobacco smoke. Crack is vastly more addictive than cocaine for the same reason. The free base allows for inhalation, that's the whole magic.

Anyway, I am just nitpicking about the amphetamine ~= MDMA. I think we're overall on the same page.

> The A in MDMA stands for Amphetamine

While this basic line of argument is wrong, if you are going to do it, you should start with the fact that the MA stand for methamphetamine.

Yes, and it so happens, methamphetamine and MDMA have similar mechanisms of action, because they are similar molecules.

They're not physically addictive and can help break physical addictions, however it can become addictive to the ego mind - that doesn't mean that you won't benefit from 40 sessions of whatever.

Context recovery request: "would condone" or "have not had"?

I interpreted it as s,condone,condemn, (i.e. "would not condemn") or something similar. What leads me to think this is that she said "I do not recommend any illegal substances but ..." (emphasis mine).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com