Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Another Iowa Caucus Party in S... | Your Iowa Predictions? »

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Ecstasy: Safer than Aspirin?

posted by on January 3 at 13:40 PM

There’s a big debate in the UK right now over the risks of taking ecstasy. The Chief Constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom, told BBC’s Radio 4 last week, “Ecstasy is a remarkably safe substance – it’s far safer than aspirin. If you look at the Government’s own research into deaths you’ll find that Ecstasy, by comparison to many other substances – legal and illegal – it is comparably a safe substance.” Politicians and an anti-drug group have called for his resignation, claiming that there is no safe dose. Meanwhile, cops have backed up Brunstrom’s position.

As someone who’s taken both ecstasy and aspirin, though, I disagree with the ecstasy-is-safer-than-aspirin claim. Granted, lots of people die from anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin (about 7,600 in the US in 2000). While there are no reliable stats for ecstasy deaths in the US, there are certainly fewer. (UPDATE: David Wright points out in comments that Brunstrom’s comparison is statistically flawed: “Even if death is the only danger under consideration, the relevant statistic is not the number of deaths, it’s the number of deaths divided by the number of doses.” Agreed, David.)

And what about the drugs’ impacts on people who don’t die?

Second worse to taking ecstasy and dying has got to be taking ecstasy and living. The serotonin depletion that follows the high is enough to make a joyologist despondent for a week. It also causes dehydration and increases the risk of heat exhaustion. Aspirin just doesn’t have those effects.

And if anyone doubts that ecstasy can be fatal, check out the feature I wrote for this week’s issue. It’s a sad story. It covers how one person died after taking a relatively small dose of ecstasy but how fear of punitive drug policies may have prevented friends from saving her life.

RSS icon Comments

1

I thought that Seratonin depletion caused by Ecstasy was mostly an urban legend. Real Ecstasy (MDMA) is pretty damned safe and has been proven to be one of the only effective treatments for severe cases of PTSD. The street stuff that's cut w/ speed is where you can get into trouble.

Posted by Ryan | January 3, 2008 1:48 PM
2

Why is it certain that there are fewer ecstasy deaths if there are no stats?

Posted by PA Native | January 3, 2008 1:49 PM
3

Well, yeah, the post e crash aint so great (though 5htp helps), I gotta object to your "second worse to taking e and dying" line. If you want to examine the drug's impact on people's lives who don't die, you need to evaluate both the period under the drug's influence, and after. If you do e right you have an experience that more than compensates for the post party blues which can include:
- Mind-blowing sex
- Deeper connection with friends, lovers and strangers that continues well beyond the e high itself
- Greater insight into yourself and what you want out of life / want to be
- Experiencing club parties at a whole 'nother level

yadayada

And this coming from someone who's in recovery mode from a rock-star party weekend no less...

Posted by freshnycman | January 3, 2008 1:53 PM
4

Yes, but for those of us who are lightweights, the after-effects of e are simply not manageable. The artificial depression that followed my last experience lasted weeks, not a week, which pretty much convinced me to stick with pot. Not that I needed my arm twisted.

Kudos to them what can handle their aspirins, too.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | January 3, 2008 1:59 PM
5

while i'm fairly certain that my personal experiance with 'e' may be far from typical, my boyfriend and i just celebrated our seventh year of a relationship that was jumpstarted by an evening with 'e' ( on new years eve no less ). for us taking 'e' and living has been pretty danged wonderful. i should mention that he hasn't taken it since and i am currently on aspirin therapy to stave off heart attacks and strokes. which is another way of saying that there may be a kind of apples and oranges lesson to learned here.

Posted by reverend dr dj riz | January 3, 2008 2:03 PM
6

@1) Serotonin depletion caused by ecstasy is widely documented. Here's one paper of many.

@2) Here's data from the DEA on MDMA-related emergency room visits, which aren't deaths. There were 5,542 that year (fewer than aspirin-related deaths). You'll also see that there are thousands more aspirin-related ER visits.

Posted by Dominic Holden | January 3, 2008 2:03 PM
7

third to taking e and living is living and being around people taking e.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 3, 2008 2:04 PM
8

@7 - right on! There are few things more annoying than dealing with a grinning, wide-pupiled e-head.

Those who think "deeper connections with friends, lovers and strangers" come out of a pill are, well, high.

And for pete's sake will someone please pass the bong!

Posted by Providence | January 3, 2008 2:10 PM
9

This post treads dangerously close to committing a statistical error. Even if death is the only danger under consideration, the relevant statistic is not the number of deaths, it's the number of deaths divided by the number of doses. Given how much more common it is to take an aspirin that to take a hit of X, ecstasy would likely be more dangerous than aspirin even if it killed only ~100 people/year in the U.S.

Posted by David Wright | January 3, 2008 2:11 PM
10

I'm my experiences with ecstasy, I definitely always felt the post-high depression for a week or two. But, more than that, I felt like it made me more likely to be depressed even months after I would take it. I finally just said, this shit is fucking me up, and was done with it.

Taking good ecstasy is an amazing experience, but, in the end, I felt like it was destroying my brain. If others don't have that experience, good for them, but I am not so lucky.

Posted by Julie | January 3, 2008 2:14 PM
11

Taking e in small doses (1/4 pill) is actually very pleasant. It's not an intense of high but it's definately not sober. All the things mentioned in post #3 are still true but after about 4 hours of fun you can actually turn out the lights and go to sleep and wake the next day feeling, at worst, like you had one too many beers.

When I want the full on wild ride I take mushrooms.

Posted by monkey | January 3, 2008 2:15 PM
12

Thanks Dominic. An urban legend it is not!

Posted by Ryan | January 3, 2008 2:17 PM
13
- Mind-blowing sex - Deeper connection with friends, lovers and strangers that continues well beyond the e high itself - Greater insight into yourself and what you want out of life / want to be - Experiencing club parties at a whole 'nother level

This is bullshit. You can have all of this without taking a drug that will throw you into a suicidal funk for two weeks.

Posted by Katelyn | January 3, 2008 2:19 PM
14

Dominic, I did read your article, and if memory serves you made the case that the girl actually went into diabetic coma.

(And doesn't alcohol play into this equation too...?)

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | January 3, 2008 2:20 PM
15

The problem with almost any drug are the people who do too much, don't think it is a problem, and won't admit there are downsides to taking the drug.

you do enough of a drug there will be side effects, whether it is being a lazy bum or being emotionally wrecked.


Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 3, 2008 2:21 PM
16

(libertarian alert)

* "Second worse to taking ecstasy and dying has got to be taking ecstasy and living. " No, second worse to dying is having the government get involved, lock you up, and take your shit because you made yourself giggly and annoying for a few hours and danced like you're better than you are. Having your life ruined by the cops for something you chose to put in your body is far worse than a depression for a week that not everyone experiences.

* Whether or not ecstasy is "safer" than aspirin is a meaningless question. For those who are allergic to aspirin, which do you think is safer? For others, aspirin may be safer. Boomer obviously would decide against it (too busy with Hera, probably), but RDDR would beg to differ that it's bad for everyone. The question is, do we allow adults to choose what to put in their own bodies, or do we penalize and punish those who make those choices without obtaining the government's approval?

Posted by torrentprime | January 3, 2008 2:21 PM
17

Did you just make a BSG reference?

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | January 3, 2008 2:24 PM
18

@6 -- Indeed, it seems serotonin depletion is widely documented and definitely not urban myth.
Scroll down for some of the famous monkey brain images.
Seems serotonergic pathways are rather fucked 7 years later.
But just how much e did they keep giving those poor, abused, euphoric chimps? anyone think this study is problematic?
Yeah, i realize it's a .gov website, but it's Congressional testimony from someone essentially with the NIH.

Posted by cheston | January 3, 2008 2:25 PM
19

Medically, the nature of fatal adverse reactions to aspirin and ecstasy are very different.

Essentially all aspirin deaths fall into a few categories: 1. Deaths that occur when people take aspirin despite having a specific, known contra-indicating condition, e.g. a stomach ulcer or being under 18. (Due to the risk of Rye's syndrome, people under 18 should never take aspirin.) 2. Deaths from massive overdoses by people committing suicide. 3. Deaths due to hemorrhaging in people who have self-medicated with regular doses over long periods. (If you use aspirin -- or any drug -- regularly, you should tell your doctor.)

You will notice that none of these situations involve a perfectly healthy adult dropping dead from a single, normal aspirin dose. That just doesn't happen. The same cannot be said for MDMA. While it is quite rare for a perfectly healthy adult to drop dead from a single, normal dose of MDMA, it most certainly does happen.

Yes, much of the public policy surrounding drugs like ecstasy is driven by hysteria. Yes, ecstasy should be legal. But no, ecstasy is not less dangerous than aspirin, and making that claim just makes you look ridiculous.

Posted by David Wright | January 3, 2008 2:36 PM
20

i had a chemistry professor in college who said that if aspirin had been developed today, it would not have passed current FDA standards as an OTC medication. there are all sorts of harmful negative side effects from it [uncontrolled bleeding and ulcers come to mind]. whether those make it worse than e is highly debatable, but i don't think his comparison is too far off the mark.

one thing to consider is that much of e's safety issues are a result of impurities, as well as from other drugs that are not MDMA but sold as e. if it were legal these would presumably be much less an issue.

Posted by brandon | January 3, 2008 2:41 PM
21

yes, if E was completely pure and blah blah blah. come to the real world brandon, it misses you.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 3, 2008 2:46 PM
22

Also, what if the drug - such as aspirin - is taken in conjunction with something else like alcohol? This skews the amount of deaths caused by the aspirin.

Posted by Lisa | January 3, 2008 2:49 PM
23

E sure gave me a deeper connection to that stripper that was giving me a lapdance while listening to Spiritualized. Then I grew up.

Posted by Abe | January 3, 2008 2:59 PM
24

@17
ya-huh. I've watched the mini, and seasons 1 and 2 all in the last 3 weeks; kinda on the brain.

Posted by torrentprime | January 3, 2008 3:02 PM
25

@21: Right, because considering the effects of a black market upon product quality is totally not a real-world consideration.

Posted by torrentprime | January 3, 2008 3:12 PM
26

torrentprime, how about this;

make a comparison on the product actually in front of you instead of coming up with a hypothetical where E is "perfectly safe" and then making a comparison. that is based on what if E was legal, not the situation as it is.


Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 3, 2008 3:16 PM
27

but the question being asked here is whether or not e should be legal. they're not just comparing it to aspirin for funzies.

Posted by brandon | January 3, 2008 3:37 PM
28

...and the real world is totally over-rated.

Posted by brandon | January 3, 2008 3:38 PM
29

MDMA should be legalized for the treatment of PTSD. Slate did a good piece and there are others
( http://www.slate.com/id/2158144/)

A lot of credible studies are out there. Giving a choice between controlling their PTSD or the possibility of croaking most people would pop that pill without hesitation. its not a party drug, but if idiots want to use it as such, than thats their choice, and if they want to dehydrate to death from dancing to icelandic house music than let them. Just because people are idiotic and take things that are meant for other things, than society goes crazy and bans a drug that could be quieting the demons of thousands of PTSD sufferers.

Posted by SeMe | January 3, 2008 3:43 PM
30

@26, clearly torrentprime supports its legality, along with (probably) generalized decriminalization of low-danger recreational drugs. So he wants to make your "hypothetical situation" reality, which I'm sure would indeed result in a lower per-user death rate related to MDMA.

On a related note, along with most people on this thread, you are clearly being an asshole for no reason.

Posted by John | January 3, 2008 3:44 PM
31

i thought the debate was whether one constable thinks he should enforce a law because of how he views the risk of taking E vs. Aspirin.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 3, 2008 3:46 PM
32

Also, point of fact, does MDMA actually dehyrdate people? I was under the impression that dancing all night dehydrates people, and that MDMA makes people dance all night.

After my one all-night rave, at which I was completely sober by all definitions, I was extremely dehydrated, certainly to the point of pathology.

Posted by John | January 3, 2008 3:48 PM
33

@26:
Wow. Sometimes people DO believe their own strawmen.
You claim, "instead of coming up with a hypothetical where E is 'perfectly safe.'"
In the real world, Brandon said, "if it were legal these [safety issues] would presumably be much less an issue."

Somehow, you jumped from "much less an issue" to "They're all claiming it's perfectly 100% safe in their fantasy world!! OMG."

Posted by torrentprime | January 3, 2008 3:50 PM
34

@31. Now you're just playing, but I'll play along:
No, we're not debating whether a constable should enforce a law. Clues include the title: "Ecstasy: Safer than Aspirin?" and the first line of the post, "There’s a big debate in the UK right now over the risks of taking ecstasy." Trend lines show we're debating taking e and e's safety versus aspirin.

Posted by torrentprime | January 3, 2008 3:53 PM
35

Brandon: Your chem prof's scenario is an amusing hypothetical, and I suspect he is right. (The side-effects you list are from long-term abuse, but then there is also Rye's syndrome as an acute reaction in children.) Of course, it would also help that drugs like Tylenol and Ibuprofen would already be filling the analgesic niche in the OTC market.

Of course, as you yourself indicate, the comparative toxicology of aspirin and Tylenol is a completely different beast than the comparative toxicology of aspirin and MDMA.

Posted by David Wright | January 3, 2008 3:54 PM
36

don't get bogged down in hyperbole torrent. point stands; why aren't you making comparisons on a contemporary drug in its current form, like the constable was?

everyone else added in this "if it was legal it'd be more safe"

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 3, 2008 3:56 PM
37

David Wright @ 35



Of course, as you yourself indicate, the comparative toxicology of aspirin and Tylenol is a completely different beast than the comparative toxicology of aspirin and MDMA.


Tylenol can really damage your liver, some people can handle large doses for long periods of time (I know about this unfortunately) but if you drink alcohol or have certain liver conditions taking acetaminophen can trash your liver in nothing flat. Indeed the problem with people in Britain overdosing on acetaminophen and destroying their livers was so severe that it is no longer sold in bottles in Britain; it is now sold in blister packs to make it harder to swallow a bunch of pills (and consequently much more expensive).


Ultimately this just further proof that our drug laws are complete and utter bullshit. If the reason for banning drugs was their potential for harm then alcohol and tobacco would be DEA schedule I substances. I'd be interested in seeing statistics on the safety of E v. the safety of alcohol. Speaking from experience, and I'm sure that this went through Brunstom's mind, I'd rather deal with a bunch of Brits who were tripping on E than a bunch who had been drinking at the pub all night long.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 3, 2008 5:08 PM
38

As a somewhat relative aside on the dangers of MDMA in its pure form v. the MDMA you can get on the street do a web search for "The Case of the Frozen Addicts". This is a grim story about the dangers of street drugs that unlike the meth scare the government is attempting to hand us isn't bullshit.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 3, 2008 5:11 PM
39

Another issue to consider:

How many lives has aspirin SAVED compared to ecstasy? Divided by dose?

Despite sentimental testimonials about MDMA bestowing awesomely groovy experiences that, like, totally changes lives, there's no doubt that boring old aspirin clearly kicks its ass into the stratosphere when it comes to proof of accomplishment.

Aspirin provides the greatest survival benefit to people having a heart attack compared to any other drug, not to mention the number of strokes and heart attacks it prevents in the first place. As drugs go, it is a great one.

No drug is without costs, and every drug on the market (over the counter or otherwise) has caused deaths. The question to ask is whether the drug provides enough of a measurable benefit to justify making it legal. And yes, all you science-phobes, even subjective benefits can be measured.

Personally, though, I don't think ecstasy has proved that it makes the cut.

Posted by Gleek | January 3, 2008 5:21 PM
40

Tylenol kicks ass.

Posted by Blip | January 3, 2008 8:25 PM
41

By the way, you can actually trip on Nutmeg.

Posted by Blip | January 3, 2008 8:26 PM
42

Then, of course, there's always Midol.

Posted by Blip | January 3, 2008 8:29 PM
43

Then, of course, there's always the incredible high and health benefits of that sparkly Barbie toothpaste.

Posted by Yeek | January 3, 2008 8:30 PM
44

noone has actually ever died from a reaction to mdma out of the 7 ecstasy related death out of 1 million users (uk figures suggest) per year almost all cases are related to dehydration / or brain swell due to drinking to much (1 reported case 25pints of water!)

some uk figures suggest 634 out of 1 million alcohol users die each year which is an increase on previous years( compared to E's 7/1million)

serotonin depleation occurs after the initial rush after taking an E thus meaning most users will feel at least a little down for a day or 2 afterwards. Dose and quality of pills also play a part in this From experience the downer is almost always worse after taking a 'crap E' cut with speed for example or taking a higher dose.

while i cant condone or reccomend taking E i often wonder why none users are so concerned with those who do use it? and why they seem to have the need to try scare thos who use it?? if you have no desire take it good for you you then avoid all risks and side effect completley but just remember next time you crack open a beer you stand around 90% more of a chance of popping your clogs !

Posted by emma | January 5, 2008 7:11 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).