"wells@submute.net" <wells@submute.net> wrote:
quoted 11 lines Disasterous for a scene when a few morons take too many drugs and >keel
>
>Disasterous for a scene when a few morons take too many drugs and >keel
>over?
>
>That sort of stupidity doesn't deserve pity, much less a badly-themed
> >story in any sort of people.
>
>Stupid is as stupid rolls, or something like that.
>
>The idea of "reponsible" ecstasy use is pretty fucking amusing to
>begin with.
What's, er, "disasterous" is the kind of fear and paranoia that causes
ostensible adults to attempt to outlaw dance events because of a few
tragedies (especially since drug overdoses are most likely every bit as
common at, say, rock and roll events). The "moron" in question, when the
toxicology comes up, may well be shown to have taken MDMA that had been cut
with something else, probably a stronger derivative (one of the hazards of
otherwise reasonably safe drugs being illegal). And no, no one deserves
"pity"--for different reasons than the ones you'd be likely to give--but
someone's life getting cut off at 20 is a tragedy that should be mourned,
however it happened and whoever's at fault.
And yes, there *is* such a thing as responsible ecstacy use, as evidenced by
the hundreds of presumably responsible pharmacotherapists lobbying that its
use for therapeutic purposes be allowed by the FDA, who is seriously
considering it as a treatment of clinical depression. Used sparingly (as in
once a month or so), it doesn't even depress your seratonin levels any more
than alcohol over the long term--- assuming, of course, that you're a happy
drunk.
And incidentally: no, I am not a big proponent of ecstacy use (or any
chemicals that take you places that you should really be able to get to on
your own), nor do I take X myself, but the general paranoia surrounding this
particular drug is laughable, as was your response. This drug was made
illegal because it was new and because it's recreational, not because it was
actually much more dangerous than any number of over-the-counter or
prescription drugs. "Not dangerous", natch, assumes that the dosage and
contents are regulated, which isn't currently the case, and that no one is
dumb enough to give themselves water poisoning, which is the one legitimate
danger of a normal dose.
And I agree with Brian that the "willing to look the other way when illegal
drugs, etc.." comment is a bit frightening in its implications. Expect a
"repetitive beats" law in Chicago soon, with the incumbent chest-beating.
Cheers,
Matthew
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org