X and the new mind

The love and hope that we can achieve with the nudge of substance is no small thing. The need for the nudge is not the same for everyone. I no longer need the nudge to reach out but this can not be said for everyone. The reaching out to the mind and the spirit of others is one of the prime uses of substances.

I never really liked the effects of vitamin L or the carryover effects the next day as the wind down occurs. So I only have few experiences.

X was not available to me in my youth but I did have the opportunity to explore its expansion power. May I say “if” I was able to continue to explore its power I would. Few times in my existence have I found the need or want to use a substance to reach a level in which I am able communicate. I was able to communicate on new levels with this substance. After the effects have subsided I was able to retain much of the new thought processes and feelings. For that I am grateful to the goddess.

ariakeen

Jessica, there's little truth to the statement about brain damage cause from taking MDMA also know as Ecstacy, XTC, X, or E.

www.mdma.net/

MDMA's apologists aren't convinced that the neurotoxicity evidence is persuasive - except for MDMA taken at unrealistically high doses. As Paracelsus (1493-1541) noted centuries ago, "All substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy." Most early studies of the possible long-term adverse effects of MDMA use in humans have been methodologically flawed - inadequately controlled, retrospective rather than prospective, and marred by a failure adequately to exclude confounding variables - e.g. the so-called stereotype threat. Some published toxicity studies include a large percentage of self-reported "Ecstasy" users who've never even taken MDMA.

Suppression of "illicit" knowledge in academia and the overground research community isn't normally so melodramatic or heavy-handed. But systemic bias and the habit of internalised self-censorship extends throughout the apparatus of peer-reviewed journals, sponsored conferences, and mainstream clinical medicine. On the one hand, negative results and non-results from toxicity studies are difficult to publish or publicise. Conversely, "positive" toxicity results from studies run by primate vivisectionists using chronic or near-fatal MDMA doses are newsworthy and fundable. Such publication bias is insidious and endemic; it's underestimated because prospective authors are broadly aware of what can - and can't - get published; and so they don't bother to submit what they know can't be accepted. Even this biasing factor massively understates the problem. This is because most potential psychedelic research projects can't get official permission or funding in the first place. As noted by New Scientist in Ecstasy on the Brain (April 2002): "'It's an open secret that some teams have failed to find deficits in ecstasy users and had trouble publishing the findings...The journals are very conservative,' says [Andrew] Parrott. 'It's a source of bias.' Parrott himself has had two papers of this sort turned down."

=========== ============ ========== ============ =========== =======
I selectively choose these passages. This article also has things in it about possible neurotoxicity that could indeed make one say it causes brain damage, but then you'd be leaving out the rest of the story on it. I'm going to have to read the whole article now. I have only taken MDMA three times. And this was recently. The second time was a very good time for me. The first was pleasant too, though I stayed home alone in quiet contemplation. After that I researched the effect and made sure to not do that the second time, which I didn't. I went to a friend's house for company, instead of being alone. He played dance and trance music, two forms of music I don't normally listen too, but did indeed sound very good while on MDMA and also they got me moving my body to the music. Something I never do. It certainly felt good and I was happy and laughing about it too.

Since MDMA is illegal and you're forced to by it on the black market, you can't be too sure what's in the pill. Unlike marijuana, which is easy to test by putting some in your pipe and smoking it, that won't work with MDMA. Some of those flawed studies used reports from people that thought they took MDMA, but without a controlled study there's no way of knowing what they took. Of course, the politicians took the easy way out in the United States in 1985 and just made the drug Schedule I even with doctors and research scientist stelling them the DEA was wrong. It is onely drug that had its scheduling fought , but they gave up and it's still Schedule I today.