Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Friday April 12 2019, @04:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the touchy-subject dept.

Cate Faehrmann: Why a lawmaker admitted to taking MDMA [*]

Australian Cate Faehrmann may be the world's first politician to admit to having used the illicit drug MDMA. The reaction in Australia, and globally, has surprised her, she tells Gary Nunn in Sydney.

Ms Faehrmann's admission, made in January, has come amid a fierce debate about introducing "pill testing" services in New South Wales (NSW). Five music festival-goers have died from suspected drug overdoses in NSW since September. It has prompted passionate calls for action - but state lawmakers are divided on what should be done.

Ms Faehrmann, 48, from the Greens party, argues that her opponents have a "limited understanding of the people they're needing to connect with". She says she has taken MDMA (known as ecstasy when in pill form) "occasionally" since her 20s. "I'm sitting here as a politician with more experience than anyone else in the building," she says, adding: "Maybe not - maybe I'm the only one being honest."

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian is opposed to pill testing. She has said that "no evidence [has been] provided to the government" that it saves lives, and that testing would give drug users "a false sense of security".

[*] MDMA: 3,4-Methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine:

3,4-Methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ecstasy (E), is a psychoactive drug primarily used as a recreational drug. The desired effects include altered sensations and increased energy, empathy, and pleasure. When taken by mouth, effects begin after 30–45 minutes and last 3–6 hours.

Cate Faehrmann, Gladys Berejiklian. Also check out: DanceSafe.

Related: Research Into Psychedelics Continues
FDA Designates MDMA as a "Breakthrough Therapy" for PTSD; Approves Phase 3 Trials
Scientists Give MDMA to an Octopus


Original Submission

Related Stories

Research Into Psychedelics Continues 7 comments

The clinical trials at N.Y.U.—a second one, using psilocybin to treat alcohol addiction, is now getting under way—are part of a renaissance of psychedelic research taking place at several universities in the United States, including Johns Hopkins, the Harbor-U.C.L.A. Medical Center, and the University of New Mexico, as well as at Imperial College, in London, and the University of Zurich. As the drug war subsides, scientists are eager to reconsider the therapeutic potential of these drugs, beginning with psilocybin. (Last month The Lancet, the United Kingdom's most prominent medical journal, published a guest editorial in support of such research.) The effects of psilocybin resemble those of LSD, but, as one researcher explained, "it carries none of the political and cultural baggage of those three letters." LSD is also stronger and longer-lasting in its effects, and is considered more likely to produce adverse reactions. Researchers are using or planning to use psilocybin not only to treat anxiety, addiction (to smoking and alcohol), and depression but also to study the neurobiology of mystical experience, which the drug, at high doses, can reliably occasion. Forty years after the Nixon Administration effectively shut down most psychedelic research, the government is gingerly allowing a small number of scientists to resume working with these powerful and still somewhat mysterious molecules.

As I chatted with Tony Bossis and Stephen Ross in the treatment room at N.Y.U., their excitement about the results was evident. According to Ross, cancer patients receiving just a single dose of psilocybin experienced immediate and dramatic reductions in anxiety and depression, improvements that were sustained for at least six months. The data are still being analyzed and have not yet been submitted to a journal for peer review, but the researchers expect to publish later this year.

The results taste orange.

takyon: Michael Pollan's article was published in 2015 (covered by us here) and is now featured in The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2016. Here is some fresher material:

Tripping up addiction: the use of psychedelic drugs in the treatment of problematic drug and alcohol use (DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.10.009) (DX)

Psychedelics not linked to mental health problems or suicidal behavior: A population study (open, DOI: 10.1177/0269881114568039) (DX)

MDMA could be on the market legally by 2021:

In small studies around the country, a handful of researchers have been investigating how MDMA-assisted psychotherapy can help heal the psychological and emotional damage caused by sexual assault, war, violent crime, and other traumas. Now, federal regulators have approved the drug for use in large-scale clinical trials too—a move that could set the stage for making "ecstasy" legally available as a new medicine. The Phase III trials will involve at least 230 patients, and will be sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), an organization that advocates for the medical use of various psychedelics, including MDMA (otherwise known as ecstasy or Molly or millennial aspirin). The organization funded early safety and efficacy trials of the drug in the past. And in one pilot study involving 19 PTSD patients, more than half experienced decreased symptoms for up to six years after receiving three doses of MDMA.


Original Submission

FDA Designates MDMA as a "Breakthrough Therapy" for PTSD; Approves Phase 3 Trials 28 comments

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given its approval for Phase 3 trials to treat participants with PTSD using MDMA ("ecstacy"):

The non-profit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation to MDMA for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). MAPS and the FDA have also reached agreement under the Special Protocol Assessment Process (SPA) for the design of two upcoming Phase 3 trials (MAPP1 and MAPP2) of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for patients with severe PTSD.

MDMA-assisted psychotherapy is a novel treatment package that combines psychotherapeutic techniques with three administrations of MDMA as a pharmacological adjunct. By granting Breakthrough Therapy Designation, the FDA has agreed that this treatment may have a meaningful advantage and greater compliance over available medications for PTSD.

The first Phase 3 trial (MAPP1), "A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multi-Site Phase 3 Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Manualized MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy for the Treatment of Severe Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," will begin enrolling subjects in Spring 2018, after the completion of an open-label lead-in training study at Phase 3 sites starting this fall.

[...] The Phase 3 trials will assess the efficacy and safety of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in 200-300 participants with PTSD, aged 18 and older, at sites in the U.S., Canada, and Israel. Participants will be randomized to receive three day-long sessions of either MDMA or placebo in conjunction with psychotherapy over a 12-week treatment period, along with 12 associated 90-minute non-drug preparatory and integration sessions. The primary endpoint will be the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5), as assessed by a blinded pool of independent raters.

In MAPS' completed Phase 2 trials with 107 participants, 61% no longer qualified for PTSD after three sessions of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy two months following treatment. At the 12-month follow-up, 68% no longer had PTSD. All Phase 2 participants had chronic, treatment-resistant PTSD, and had suffered from PTSD for an average of 17.8 years.

Also at ScienceAlert, the Washington Post, and Science Magazine:

Since 2012, FDA has designated close to 200 drugs as breakthrough therapies, a status that indicates there's preliminary evidence that an intervention offers a substantial improvement over other options for a serious health condition. The agency aims to help develop and review these treatments faster than other candidate drugs.


Original Submission

Scientists Give MDMA to an Octopus 36 comments

Scientists have discovered that your ordinary, everyday octopus can get "high" on MDMA just like humans. While intoxicated with "molly", an octopus is likely to be more social and friendly towards others, changing from being antisocial to highly social, much like how the drug affects humans.

Human and octopus lineages are separated by over 500 million years of evolution and show divergent anatomical patterns of brain organisation, which makes this find surprising. This may make the octopus an attractive test subject for future drug trials.

In order to test the theory that an octopus is affected by MDMA in the same way as a human, an octopus was submerged in a tank of water mixed with MDMA, and later put into a series of three connected chambers, one of which had a caged octopus underneath. The stoned octopus chose to spend its time trying to play with the caged octopus, in a complete reversal of sober octopus nature.

A Conserved Role for Serotonergic Neurotransmission in Mediating Social Behavior in Octopus (open, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.061) (DX)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snow on Friday April 12 2019, @04:36PM (23 children)

    by Snow (1601) on Friday April 12 2019, @04:36PM (#828654) Journal

    My wife and I went to a music festival one summer.

    We got some MDMA and tried it out. I didn't really notice anything different other than a super mild headache and a very slight giddiness (like a cup or two of coffee). My wife on the other hand had visual effects and stuff going on.

    The next day she was complaining that everyone was making fun of her. I would learn that she was having auditory hallucinations and extreme paranoia. We ended up having the biggest fight of our relationship and left the festival a day early. The auditory hallucinations and paranoia would end up lasting about a month or so. Initially it was so bad that she couldn't even go grocery shopping. There were just too many people for her to handle.

    We went to the doctor when we got home and she got a perscription for something or other that she ended up not really taking. Thankfully, the effects wore off after a month or so and she went back to her (mostly) normal self.

    It was a pretty scary time.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Friday April 12 2019, @04:44PM (19 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday April 12 2019, @04:44PM (#828659) Journal

      Did you use MDMA, or a pill someone said was MDMA?

      That's why pill testing is useful. Nobody knows what they are actually getting.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Snow on Friday April 12 2019, @04:46PM (14 children)

        by Snow (1601) on Friday April 12 2019, @04:46PM (#828662) Journal

        Who knows!

        It wasn't a pill, but a vial with a crystalline powder. This festival had every kind of drug under the sun available and offered drug testing (which I didn't take advantage of...). The drugs available were supposedly high quality, so I'm assuming that it was actually MDMA, but...

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @05:15PM (13 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @05:15PM (#828671) Homepage Journal

          So, uhhhhh, some stranger approaches you, and offers you something that you can't positively identify, telling you that it will make you feel good, and you take the stuff. Isn't there a special Darwin Award category for this kind of thing?

          --
          Don’t confuse the news with the truth.
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 12 2019, @05:30PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:30PM (#828678) Journal

            So, uhhhhh, some stranger approaches you, and offers you something that you can't positively identify, telling you that it will make you feel good, and you take the stuff. Isn't there a special Darwin Award category for this kind of thing?

            Nah, I survived college just fine thankyouverymuch.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snow on Friday April 12 2019, @06:39PM

            by Snow (1601) on Friday April 12 2019, @06:39PM (#828707) Journal

            That's kind of how illegal drugs work.

            It's not smart, but sometimes you have to live a bit.

          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @07:19PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @07:19PM (#828718)

            Says the fool who buys food from the store without bringing his mass spectrometer to test for heavy metals and pesticides!!

            Go home little runaway, it is time.

          • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:51AM (9 children)

            by RamiK (1813) on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:51AM (#828832)

            Unless you're a chemist or on a first name basis with the owner of your local neighborhood pharmaceutical company, it's always a stranger handing you a substance you know little about and telling you it will make you feel good.

            I would even argue taking such a random substance is more "informed" than taking a doctor's prescription. Since, between the doctor, pharmaceutical company and the researches, there's so much information loss, misinformation and too-much useless information for you to process that "it will make you feel good but you might go crazy" is often the better informing description.

            --
            compiling...
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 13 2019, @02:12AM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 13 2019, @02:12AM (#828841) Homepage Journal

              There are a few differences though. The chemist in the local drug store is licensed. Of course, one drug store may be more conscientious than another, but they actually have college behind them, and years of training. The drugs from the drug store generally come with sheets, indicating what they are, potential side effects, etc. If my prescription doesn't come with a sheet, I can ask for one, or I can look it up on the internet. I can be reasonably confident that the chemist is actually selling me what the label says.

              If you grew up with your drug supplier, and he promises that the package he hands you contains Product X, then maybe you can trust him. If you have never met the guy before, what recourse do you have when your cannabis turns out to be oregano, or whatever? How do you know that your oregano doesn't have some other chemical added, to give it an extra "kick"? How do you know that some middleman didn't cut your stuff, and add some filler to make extra profit? And, what was the filler?

              I'll "trust" the chemist much further than I'll trust some street pusher, thank you very much.

              --
              Don’t confuse the news with the truth.
              • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday April 13 2019, @07:38PM

                by fritsd (4586) on Saturday April 13 2019, @07:38PM (#829046) Journal

                Years ago, I read that Amsterdam youth gangs would buy a loaf of peperkoek [wikipedia.org], slice off the sticky dark brown skin, compress it a bit, and sell it to gullible drunk tourists as hash.

                At least that wouldn't be poisonous (assuming the tourist isn't allergic to gluten or a diabetic, as peperkoek is extremely sweet).

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:49PM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:49PM (#828954) Journal

              I would even argue taking such a random substance is more "informed" than taking a doctor's prescription.

              Anything is arguable. I think you should be providing a higher standard than that.

              Since, between the doctor, pharmaceutical company and the researches, there's so much information loss, misinformation and too-much useless information for you to process that "it will make you feel good but you might go crazy" is often the better informing description.

              Which is still better than the information loss of the "random substance" transaction with no legal repercussions for misinformation between non-existent research, drug growers, and the dealer actually selling the product to you.

              • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 14 2019, @04:54AM (5 children)

                by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 14 2019, @04:54AM (#829248)

                The premise of both yours and Runaway's reply is one of legality and authoritativeness. Surprising considering both of you typically take the anti-regulatory stance... Regardless, the issue for me is that I just don't believe I have a chance in hell to win a case against big pharma and I know they are aware of this and will release bad drugs to the market while exploiting every loophole in the laws they themselves dictated to the legislators following decades of lobbying and regulatory capture as well as their well funded legal departments.

                As a result, I'm comparing two products from two different parties: A multinational conglomerate that can battle in courts for decades and get away with murder by releasing drugs solely based on their ability to maintain relevant IPs and a local neighborhood pusher that is persecuted by law enforcement and depends on their good name to survive both as a businessman and as a free individual that attempts to produce and sell the cheapest possible drugs that won't kill their customers.

                Odd thread overall.

                --
                compiling...
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:45AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:45AM (#829264) Journal

                  The premise of both yours and Runaway's reply is one of legality and authoritativeness.

                  I disagree. Ultimately, it's a matter of consistency of product. Take unknown drugs from someone who has no reason to provide a consistent product with predictable reaction - primarily because the dealer won't see the customer again, means that you get just that. As noted earlier in the recreational drug example given, there's no reason to expect even the same mix of ingredients from pill to pill, much less a consistent effect from taking those pills.

                  Meanwhile, a prescription medicine comes from an identifiable source. Most of the time the customer is likely to use the medicine again. So there is considerable value to the manufacturer to provide a consistent experience which mostly does what the medicine is claimed to do, even in the hypothetical absence of regulation.

                  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 14 2019, @07:28AM (1 child)

                    by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 14 2019, @07:28AM (#829284)

                    Meanwhile, a prescription medicine comes from an identifiable source. Most of the time the customer is likely to use the medicine again. So there is considerable value to the manufacturer to provide a consistent experience which mostly does what the medicine is claimed to do, even in the hypothetical absence of regulation.

                    Only if the consumers -i.e. the doctors- collect and follow up on field data. The COX-2 inhibitors case proved not only they don't and it takes a fairly random third party researcher to conduct a whole new trial to discover it coincidentally, but that even if it's found dangerous, the regulators (in the US) won't step-in and remove the drug from the market so long as the patents are still in-effect. And of course, no court case could pass if the regultar doesn't acknowledge the danger despite the science being recognized globally.

                    There been other examples as well. Fentanyl I believe is the most recent in-your-face example where even if we have all the information in the world, very little gets done in the face of powerful regulatory capture.

                    And don't forget the counter example: ~50 years of false Marijuana claims and studies were promoted due "identifiable sources" and yet no one is being punished for the millions put to jail, billions of wasted tax dollars and all the harm the "safe alternatives" (a.k.a Fentanyl) caused.

                    Overall, we're living in an extreme example of Milton Friedman classic case against the FDA [youtube.com] where when a person spreads misinformation and blatantly lies they get away with it and even get elected for President while regulators almost always act solely for the benefit of their future and past employers and rarely in favor of the public. As a result, if you read a dozen news pieces from reputable sources telling you something is safe or unsafe and one anonymous poster telling you the opposite, if the money leans towards the majority there's a good chance the majority are lying and the one anonymous guy is telling the truth.

                    I believe it's what they call Fake News. Only when they use it they're typically lying.

                    --
                    compiling...
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:04PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:04PM (#829351) Journal

                      And don't forget the counter example: ~50 years of false Marijuana claims and studies were promoted due "identifiable sources" and yet no one is being punished for the millions put to jail, billions of wasted tax dollars and all the harm the "safe alternatives" (a.k.a Fentanyl) caused.

                      Or the people putting out bad product on the streets for the past 50 years.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:46AM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:46AM (#829266) Journal

                  and get away with murder by releasing drugs solely based on their ability to maintain relevant IPs

                  Only if they survive the lawsuits. Even in a purely regulation and lawsuit-free environment, they will get a bad reputation.

                  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 14 2019, @07:06AM

                    by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 14 2019, @07:06AM (#829283)

                    Even in a purely regulation and lawsuit-free environment, they will get a bad reputation.

                    This [amazon.com] came out in '05 and since we've seen hundreds of lawsuits and as many scandals and they're still going strong.

                    --
                    compiling...
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by lizardloop on Friday April 12 2019, @04:48PM (3 children)

        by lizardloop (4716) on Friday April 12 2019, @04:48PM (#828664) Journal

        Yeah that doesn't sound like MDMA. Although everyone reacts differently. I used to do a lot of MDMA but I've stopped taking it now. It used to really add to the enjoyment of a night out. Now it just makes me feel confused and horny.

        • (Score: 2) by aiwarrior on Friday April 12 2019, @05:11PM

          by aiwarrior (1812) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:11PM (#828670) Journal

          I never heard of this drug testing but to be honest it is better than selling outright poisons to people.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday April 12 2019, @06:19PM (1 child)

          by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Friday April 12 2019, @06:19PM (#828699)

          > Now it just makes me feel confused and horny.

          Hey, I know people that would pay good money to feel like a teenager again.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday April 12 2019, @06:31PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Friday April 12 2019, @06:31PM (#828702)

            You actually would pay money to get back to that state?
            I just never stopped, it's somewhat cheaper, except for the acne soap budget.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @06:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @06:03PM (#828693)

      I hope you understand that the whole thing was caused by your failure to test the drug, which obviously was not MDMA.
      Take random drugs, wind up fried.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @07:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @07:47PM (#829052)

      yeah, that's likely meth of some kind. mdma doesn't do any of that stuff.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @09:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @09:55PM (#829136)

      Ok, but this is why dancesafe exists. You and your wife made serious rookie mistakes and paid. Taking mentally active drugs is like bungee jumping or parachuting, but with your brain.

      Let me explain.

      From your symptoms' commonalities, I'd say the base drug was probably meth, maybe coke. Each of your experiences would be typical then - see tweaker.pub or erowid.org.

      Besides that, You almost certainly had some dangerous mix. You didn't titrate. You got doses of something which might've been unevenly cut or packaged - powders compress, look at flour - or to which you reacted dramatically differently. It sounds like you got poorly-mixed acid, ketamine, or bath salts in with with it, or maybe just plain badly weighed meth.

      Go to a festival or rave, find an older raver of either gender who seems pretty with it. Ask them if they test their drugs. Find an older raver who seems burned out; ask. Repeat until satisfied, you'll note a pattern is consistent.

      And that was the old days. Not testing powdered and pilled drugs in the age of car/fentanyl is courting death.

      Your wife is lucky the psychotic break was temporary and in future she should avoid all cocaine-like and most psychoactive drugs.

      If you'd been Scouts ("Be Prepared") your outcome would have been different, I wager.

      Geeks, please be geeks about psychonaut shit. At least Tor over to erowid.org. Spend an hour researching for every hour tripping for at least your first 10 hours on any given substance. Don't mix if avoidable; drugs are already strong.

      So to recap:
      1) you didn't research the drugs ahead (did you know expected onset? was onset on time?)
      2) you bought at the party without testing (at least now you recognize this was a mistake)
      3) you ingested all at once (omg titrate, people, brains are different and this is serious stuff)

      I know people who play literal russian roulette. Your experience was only marginally safer. Your wife has higher odds of early onset dementia and more, now. Consolations.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 12 2019, @05:28PM (6 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:28PM (#828676) Journal

    Back in my day we called it "X", 'cause X's were still cool. We'd go to a rave, takes some X, and tie an onion to our belt which was the style at the time.

    The kids these days call it Molly.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @06:09PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @06:09PM (#828695)

      The kids these days call it Molly.

      And they call this stuff [wikipedia.org] Tina [convio.net] (ask Runaway1956 [soylentnews.org] about it. He has lots of experience!).

      What's with the girls' names for drugs? I mean women can be intoxicating, but damn!

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Snow on Friday April 12 2019, @06:42PM

        by Snow (1601) on Friday April 12 2019, @06:42PM (#828709) Journal

        These days I just do the Mary-Jane ;)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @04:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @04:15AM (#828865)

        So THAT'S why they call that toothless hooker at the truck stop "Tina Lady"!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday April 13 2019, @03:09PM

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday April 13 2019, @03:09PM (#828979) Homepage Journal

        So that's why they call you Generation X.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @12:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @12:36PM (#828942)

      and tie an onion to our belt which was the style at the time.

      They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @08:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @08:02PM (#829066)

      I never went to a rave but me and my friends used to get what we called "chocolate chip" which was mdma with big ass chunks of black tar heroin in pill form. These were not the wimpy pills that ended up being the norm years later. These were the diameter of a dime and as thick as 3 dimes. You puked in about 15 minutes the first couple times you took one from all the heroin. Later, i added a hit or two of quality 300 microgram lsd with the X. The rave was wherever we were at the time.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @11:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @11:07PM (#828785)

    The rest of your confession is pretty easy.

  • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday April 13 2019, @07:52PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Saturday April 13 2019, @07:52PM (#829056) Journal

    It's not smart for her to follow the advice of a stoned [wikipedia.org] person [wikipedia.org], however her honesty is to be applauded!

(1)