[Contents]
[Chapter 2][Chapter
4]
MDMA was patented as long ago as 1913 by the German company
Merck. Rumour has it that the drug was sold as a slimming pill
along with comic descriptions of its strange side effects,
although it was never marketed and the patent doesn't mention
uses. The next time it came to light was in 1953 when the US army
tested a number of drugs for military applications - again,
folklore says it was tried as a truth drug but there is no
evidence for this.(1)
The father of MDMA - or 'stepfather' as he describes himself - is
Alexander Shulgin.(2)
After obtaining a PhD in biochemistry from the University of
California at Berkeley, Shulgin got a job as a research chemist
with Dow Chemicals, for whom he invented a profitable
insecticide. As a reward, the company gave him a free hand and
his own lab. Having had an exciting experience on Mescaline,
Shulgin used the opportunity to research psychedelic drugs. An
accepted test for psychedelic effects was to observe how fighting
fish change their behaviour. But there were problems: fish don't
say when they are under the influence and, well, have you ever
seen a fish that doesn't look stoned? His answer was to 'suck it
and see'.
Eventually his company was embarrassed to find themselves holding
the patents of some popular street drugs and he was politely
given the push. Shulgin continued testing new compounds on
himself and a select group of friends for many years. Thanks to
his remarkable personality - combining openness without
proselytising about his liberal and controversial views - he has
earned the respect of influential people and is able to carry on
with his research today, with the full approval of the US
government. His approach to psychedelics is similar to that of a
botanist: he specialises in the phenethylamines, and delights in
recording the subtle differences between each member of that
family of drugs. His experiences are described in his
autobiography Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved. MDMA is but
one of 179 psychoactive drugs which he describes in detail, and,
although its effects are less dramatic than many, MDMA is perhaps
the one which comes closest to fulfilling his ambition of finding
a therapeutic drug. Shulgin has now moved on to writing a book
about another family of psychoactive drugs, the tryptamines, due
out in 1995.
However, it was only after hearing glowing reports from other
experimenters who had also synthesised and tried MDMA that
Shulgin took an interest. He describes how in 1977 he gave some
to an old friend who was about to retire from his career of
psychotherapy.
He phoned me a few days later to tell me he had abandoned his
plans for a quiet retirement. I know none of the details of the
increasingly complex network which he proceeded to develop over
the following decade, but I do know that he travelled across the
country introducing MDMA to other therapists and teaching then
how to use it in their therapy. They had all began, of course, by
taking the drug themselves. He believed (as I do) that no
therapist has the right to give a psychoactive drug to another
person unless and until he is thoroughly familiar with its
effects on his own mind. Many of the psychologists and
psychiatrists whom Leo instructed developed small groups or
enclaves of professionals who had been similarly taught, and the
information and techniques he had introduced spread widely and,
in time, internationally.
It is impossible to ever know the true breadth of therapeutic
MDMA usage achieved during the remaining years of his life, but
at his memorial service, I asked an old friend of his whether she
had a guess at the number of people he had introduced to this
incredible tool, either directly or indirectly. She was silent
for a moment, then said, 'Well, I've thought about that, and I
think probably around four thousand, give or take a few.' Those
first psychotherapists to use MDMA were keenly aware that they
had found a valuable new tool.(3, 4, 135) As one put it,
"MDMA is penicillin for the soul, and you don't give up
prescribing penicillin, once you've seen what it can do".
They were equally aware that if MDMA became a popular street
drug, it could follow in the footsteps of LSD and be criminalized
by the US government. They agreed to do as much informal research
as possible without bringing the drug to public attention, and
did pretty well - MDMA only gradually became known as a fun drug
and it wasn't until 1984 that the bubble burst.
If MDMA is so wonderful, why hasn't it been marketed by any of
the big drug companies? One reason is that the drug's commercial
potential is small; another was that the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) prohibited trials on humans. But perhaps the
most significant obstacle to the commercial exploitation of MDMA
is that it has already been patented - although the patent ran
out years ago, a drug cannot be patented a second time. Before
marketing a new drug, a drug company has to show that the safety
risks are justified by the drug's benefits as a medicine, and
this involves long and expensive trials. The only way of
recouping that expense is by obtaining exclusive rights to sell
the drug through holding its patent.
Those years 1977 to 1985 are looked back on as the 'golden age'
of Ecstasy or Adam(5)
as it was then known. In psychotherapy, its use only appealed to
a few experimental therapists since it didn't fit in with the
usual 50-minute psychotherapy session, but they did include some
of the most dynamic people in the field, including some who
claimed that a five hour Adam session was as good as 5 months of
therapy.(166) There
was also a select a group of 'explorers' who used the drug in
various ways, but, surprisingly, they never discovered its
potential as a dance drug.
By 1984 the drug was still legal and was being used widely among
students in the USA under its new name 'Ecstasy'. (Rumour has it
that a big-time dealer called it 'Empathy', but, although the
name is more appropriate, he found that Ecstasy had more sales
appeal.) In Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, Ecstasy was even on
sale in bars where you could pay by credit card, where it
replaced cocaine as the drug of choice among yuppies and even
spread to people who normally kept well clear of drugs. However,
it was this public and unashamed use that resulted in the drug
being outlawed.
A deeply-embedded puritan ethic seems to affect the response to
drugs in Western societies. To use a drug for pleasure is taboo(3), yet to use a drug to
relieve pain is acceptable. In reality there is no sharp
distinction: if someone is 'suffering from depression' and a drug
makes him feel happy, it is regarded as a medicine and meets with
approval. But if that person is regarded as normal and takes a
drug that makes him happy, he is indulging in something quite
unacceptable. Except, of course, if the drug happens to be
nicotine or alcohol.(16)
During 1985 Ecstasy got into the mass media because a small group
of people sued the US Drug Enforcement Agency to try to prevent
them from outlawing the drug. The controversy provided free
advertising which made Ecstasy spread like wildfire throughout
the US. It was a case of bad timing - the previous year there had
been a widely publicised disaster that made the authorities
overreact to any new scare. A batch of 'China White', a so-called
designer drug(6) which
was sold to heroin addicts as a legal substitute, had contained a
poisonous impurity, and, tragically, it caused a form of severe
brain damage similar to Parkinson's disease.(7) As a result the US
Congress passed a new law allowing the DEA to put an emergency
ban on any drug it thought might be a danger to the public. On
July 1st 1985 this right was used for the first time to ban MDMA
- what is more, MDMA was put in the most restrictive category of
all, reserved for damaging and addictive drugs without medical
use.(8) The effect of
prohibition was to curtail research into the drug without
changing the attitudes of recreational users.(9) However, the Agency's
haste was at the expense of not following the letter of the law,
leaving the ruling to be overturned in subsequent court cases.
The temporary ban only lasted for a year; meanwhile a hearing was
set up to decide what permanent measures should be taken against
the drug. The case received much publicity and was accompanied by
press reports advancing the kind of scare stories now current in
Europe, which added to the pressure to make the ban permanent.
One widely publicised report referred to evidence that another
drug, MDA, caused brain damage in rats and concluded that MDMA
could cause brain damage in humans.(10, 11, 12) The media indulged in
horror scenarios of 'our kids' brains rotting by the time they
were thirty, although there was no evidence that MDMA caused
brain damage in rats at the dosage levels used by humans. On the
other side were the psychotherapists who gave evidence of the
benefits of the drug - but they had failed to prepare their
ground by carrying out scientifically acceptable trials, so their
evidence was regarded as 'anecdotal'.
The case ended with the judge recommending that MDMA be placed in
a less restrictive category, Schedule 3, which would have allowed
it to be manufactured, to be used on prescription and to be the
subject of research. But the recommendation was ignored by the
DEA, which refused to back down and instead placed MDMA
permanently in Schedule 1. A group of MDMA supporters made a
successful challenge to this decision in the Federal Court of
Appeal, but their objections were overturned on 23rd March 1988.
The fight is still continuing on the grounds that the law is
unconstitutional, that the correct procedure was not followed and
that the DEA did not take all the evidence into account.
In most countries including the US, all new drugs are regarded as
'innocent until proved guilty' unless they are substantially
similar in structure and effect to prohibited drugs, and this
gives rise to the phenomenon known as 'designer drugs' - drugs
which have been deliberately synthesised to avoid the law. In
Britain, however, whole families of chemicals - including members
that have not been invented - are treated as 'guilty until proved
innocent' under the law. Psychedelic amphetamines, which includes
MDA, MDEA and MDMA have been illegal in Britain since 1977, and,
as in the US, MDMA has been placed in the category that attracts
highest penalties.(13,
14) All member
countries of the United Nations are signatories to the
International Convention on Psychotropic Substances (ICPO) and
follow recommendations laid down by the World Health Organisation
Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. In 1985, under American
pressure, the ICPO asked member nations to place the drug in
Schedule 1 although the chairman of the WHO Expert Committee
disagreed with this decision, stating that "At this time,
international control is not warranted." A clause was added
encouraging member nations to "facilitate research on this
interesting substance".(15)
The criminalisation of MDMA in America has had wide-ranging
consequences. The first was to prevent the drug being used by
professional therapists, except in Switzerland (see chapter 9). The second w as to
reduce the quality of the drug as sold on the street, because
demand was now met by clandestine laboratories and the drug was
distributed through the criminal network. Although the number of
users was dramatically reduced at first, criminalisation did not
prevent the drug's popularity spreading worldwide.
Ecstasy was favoured by Bhagwan Rajneesh, the Indian guru
whose disciples wore orange, and when his followers moved out of
their ashram in Oregon they brought the drug to Europe in the mid
eighties.(17)
The rave scene started on the hippy holiday island of Ibiza in
1987, where Ecstasy joined LSD and hashish at all-night dance
parties. In England 'raves' took the form of both large outdoor
and warehouse parties, well described by Paul Staines in Appendix 3.
Warehouses were prepared secretly so as to avoid local people
obtaining a court order to prevent the raves happening. Tickets
were sold in advance without the address, but with a phone number
to ring on the night for instructions regarding a meeting place
such as a motorway service station from where a convoy would
proceed to the venue. Opposition to raves was fierce since people
living up to two miles away could be kept awake all night. By
1990 the British government had passed a law, the Entertainments
(Increased Penalties Act)(18),
which effectively put an end to these big gatherings.
The result was to push ravers into dance clubs. The Hacienda in
Manchester led the trend in 1988 with the now prevalent style:
DJs who never spoke, but teased the dancers with their subtle
'scratching' establishing the Manchester sound.(19) From there clubbing
on E came to London, the rest of Europe and eventually back to
E's native California, as reported in the San Francisco Examiner:
The English ravers hit San Francisco in the winter of 1991.
"We were suddenly surrounded by these kids, moving here from
England. They were coming here in droves and bringing with them a
new sensibility, a new style of clothes."
By this time Ecstasy had reached nearly every corner of society
in England and by the winter of 1991-2 demand had outstripped
supply, partly due to some massive police seizures.(20, 21) Dealers responded by
selling any old tablet as Ecstasy and no doubt made huge profits,
but as a result people had disappointing experiences and turned
away from Ecstasy. Many turned to LSD instead for the simple
reason that the dose cannot be adulterated(13) as it is microscopic
(a thousand times smaller than a dose of MDMA) and is normally
sold absorbed into a 'blotter', a tiny piece of paper too small
to absorb active quantities of any other popular drug.
The English pattern of use contrasts with the American one both
in kind and volume, which accounts for there being so many more
casualties here. The proportion of young people taking Ecstasy is
many times higher in Britain(22, 23), and here it is
nearly always used as a dance drug. Americans generally use
Ecstasy at home, although English-style raves are on the
increase.
Although the therapeutic use of MDMA has been outlawed in the US
for the past seven years, steps are being taken there towards
MDMA becoming a prescription drug. To comply with prerequisites
for the licensing of new drugs, a non-profit organisation called
The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)
opened a Drug Master File for MDMA in 1986, thus permitting
research into the drug to be conducted. Recently, research into
the effects of MDMA in human volunteers has been approved by the
FDA itself, and trials began in 1993.(24) I have faith in
common sense prevailing over prejudice in the long run; unless
new evidence emerges that MDMA is toxic or another drug appears
that is even better, I believe that one day MDMA will be an
acceptable medicine.
[Contents]
[Chapter 2][Chapter
4]
E for Ecstasy by Nicholas Saunders (
E for Ecstasy by Nicholas
Saunders
HTMLized by Lamont Granquist (lamontg@u.washington.edu)