MDMA=Deforestation

Hmmm...

I'd need some documentation to buy into this. Most MDMA is lab synth'd.

At the same time, I find it interesting how skeptical people get about anything that challenges their ideas of right and wrong. Take for example another scenario. Republicans still deny global warming and keep on driving their trucks. But, they buy into the fact Obama is an "ARAB TERRORIST MUSLIM" because some wacko for Alaska says so. It's not a partisan issue. It's a human nature issue.

MDMA has plenty reasons not to do it: drug violence, unnecesary use of chemicals, real research into its dangers, etc. It also has real reasons to do it.

The jury is still out.

 

How long is the jury going to be out for? Were approaching 100 years from its original synthesis and at least 50+ since being tested on humans.

 

I meant the deforestation bit.

MDMA is well know, hence there being plenty of reasons to and to not do it. The risks are well known. So are the benefits. It's a personal choice at this point.

 

sass is amazing.....mmmm. but thats prolly what causes the real damage. sass and moonrocks. the yellow tan dark pruplish chunky looking molly

 

Best point made in this thread.

I doubt everyone knows exactly where their drugs are coming from and what unspeakable things have been done in the process of them ending up in your hands. And i am not talking about to the drugs.

 

Fuck trees, i wana roll

 

do you drive a car?

 

what happened to the hip in hipforums? in one breath im sure most of you would slam big corporations that have bad business platforms that lead to deforestation. Then the next breath as soon as your drugs are called into question you immediately write it off and claim that its ok

real cool

 

you should make song about this and play it on a gibson geetar..

:guitarist:..

 

goddamnit why is everything so fucked?

 

You raise a good point but...

mdma has had a history of propaganda against it, everything from claims that it eats holes in the brain, to taking it once can kill you and so on. All those types of claims have been shown to be greatly exaggeratted if not straight up fabricated, so why should we be gullible to claims like that now?

 

thats also a good point. however, I think deforestation even if it is exaggerated is a reality.

 

I have to say, this is plain wrong. MDMA is synthesized from saffrole, which is derived from the roots of a few species of tree. As far as I know, it's not possible to synthesize MDMA without saffrole. I don't know about the role of saffrole in the other MDxx's.

Now, I refuse to buy the whole "it's causing gang violence and destroying the planet" argument against drug use. American sassafras was never a problem when it was used for tea or purfume or any of that shit. I think it's a trash tree, easily farmed and abundant in many places. The reason it comes from asia instead is because of US DRUG PROHIBITION, which is also the reason that it causes violence.

So you're right, end US drug prohibition, save asian rainforests. Because it's going to come from somewhere, one way or another. And I won't let my government guilt trip me because of THEIR failed policies. I'm not cutting down rare trees, and would not, but once there's MDMA in this market, nobody needs to feel bad about buying it, the US DEA and other governmental bodies responsible for it's legal status need to feel bad, not me.

 

i dont think government policies void people's responsibility for the deforestation. why is it so hard for people to own up to their own actions? people are supporting a product that given the circumstances destroys the environment. saying you are not responsible is outrageous

 

Because MDMA does not hurt the environment, until you make it illegal. So those at fault are the drug warriors.

It's a bit like the government stomping a kitten each time you smoke a joint and then trying to blame you for the stompin'.

Those needlessly causing that situation are at fault, not those who are aware of the cognitive liberties that are rightfully theirs.

 

can't they just replant the trees? or can't they just grow a field full of these trees by planting the tree seeds? and pure MDMA is hard to find now days where I live. I would not even trust to do E, coke, or meth anymore because I never know exactly what people cut the drug with or what I am sniffing or eating. I do care about my future health. if I want a stimulant I am just gonna look for some aderall or ritalin. sure it is not as powerful but whatever at least I know what it is.

 

it may not eat holes in your brain but it destroys your serotonin receptors. anyone who denies the proven scientific evidence is just drugged out and not accepting the truth.

 

that could be done easily, american sassafras is still an economically important crop, i think. But the saffrole is discarded.... we seem to have decided sassafras tea with it's original saffrole content suddenly became an imminent threat to the health of all like... 6... old ladies who actually LIKED the shit..... just about the time MDMA became popular, and saffrole emerged as it's one vital and controllable precurser.

 

Regulate use of MDMA as a Schedule II or lower drug for psychotherapy etc. and have the government grow their own plots of the saffrole trees that they replant meticulously. Leave the wild trees unharmed. Again- the problem isn't the drug. It's the drug prohibition which leads to using illicit precusors.

To the OP- there are tens of thousands of fine psychoactive drugs out there do don't be sad that MDMA is now off your list. There is hope for your mind.

 

That is logic I can stand behind. :2thumbsup: