E for Ecstasy by Nicholas Saunders
Appendix 1: Reference Section
- 9 Why MDMA Should Not Have Been Made Illegal, by Marsha Rosenbaum
and Rick Doblin, from the book The Drug Legalisation Debate
- In this article it is argued that with many claims of people benefiting
from taking MDMA and few reports of the drug causing damage, its use should
not have been outlawed in the US. The effect of making MDMA illegal was
to curtail scientific research and to stimulate consumer demand for the
drug. The article details the way the law was applied: after nearly 2 years
of hearings a judge decided that the drug should be placed in Schedule 3,
which is for less-dangerous drugs and would have allowed trials and research
to continue. But the Drug Enforcement Agency insisted on MDMA being put
into Schedule 1 in spite of widespread objections and challenges to the
"dubious legality" of this move.
- 100 MDMA users were interviewed in depth between 1987 and 1989, i.e.
after it was made illegal. The article concludes that the law has made no
difference to recreational users' attitudes.
E is for Ecstasy by Nicholas Saunders (firstname.lastname@example.org)
HTMLized by Lamont Granquist (email@example.com)