[DanaC]

With regard to drugs, I can't explain how the distinctions are made other than how quickly they will kill you if you get a bad batch. I don't know of anyone who has ever keeled over after a bad drop of red, but I do know people who've died because they snorted something impure. I believe that's probably a similar distinction that a lot of other people make when they think about good and bad drugs.

With a lot of drugs there are risks. You can end up snorting/injecting/swallowing something that isn't what it's supposed to be and which results in a fatality or illness. But then again, how many people die of food poisoning every year? Or from a first-time anaphalactic response to something they've developed an allergy to?

As for ecstacy. I still do not understand why this drug is illegal. The prime danger when taking ecstacy is that you may in fact be taking an entirely different (and very dangerous) substance, which has been marked and sold as MDMA. That risk would be seriously reduced if it was legal and regulated (bear in mind unregulated, bootleg alcohol can cause blindness, brain damage and death).

From NationMaster:

A research team led by Dr. George A. Ricaurte at Johns Hopkins University implicated MDMA as a cause of Parkinson's-like brain abnormalities in monkeys. In a now retracted study they suggested that a single use of MDMA caused permanent and serious brain damage. These claims were hotly disputed by physicians, therapists, and other experts - including a team of scientists at New York University. Criticisms of the study included that it used injection rather than oral administration; that this type and scale of damage (>20% mortality) would translate to hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths which had not materialized in the real world amidst extremely broad global MDMA usage; and, perhaps most important, that other research teams could not duplicate the study's findings.


On September 6, 2003, Dr. George A. Ricaurte and his team announced that they were retracting all results of their commonly cited and controversial study. The researchers said that the labels on the drugs had been somehow switched, and they had inadvertently injected their experimental monkeys and baboons with methamphetamine instead of MDMA. The chemical supplier, Research Triangle Institute, has publicly claimed that the proper drug was supplied, and Ricaurte has yet to pursue them for their alleged error.


Ricaurte had also come under fire for supplying PET scans to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy that were used in anti-drug literature (Plain Brain/Brain After Ecstasy) that seemed to suggest MDMA created holes in human brains, an implication that critics called misleading. Ricaurte later asked the Agency to change the literature, citing the "poor quality" of the images.

also

The illegality of this drug in many countries makes exact study of its effects difficult. Some of the effects ascribed to ecstasy, which may or may not be conclusive, are the following:

Because of its illegality, the dose and purity of a pill advertised as ecstacy may be stronger than is desired or may be unsafe.
Ecstasy affects the regulation of the body's internal systems. Continuous dancing without sufficent breaks or drinks can lead to dangerous overheating and dehydration. Drinking too much water without consuming a corresponding amount of salt can lead to hyponatremia or Water intoxication.
The use of ecstasy can exacerbate depression and produces temporary depression as an after-effect of its use.
The use of ecstasy can be very dangerous when combined with other drugs.
Because it substantially affects perception, concentration, and motor skills, it is dangerous to operate heavy machinery or motor vehicles when using ecstasy.
Long-term after-effects are greatly exacerbated by high doses and frequent use.
A small percentage of users may be highly sensitive to MDMA; this may make first-time use especially hazardous. This includes but is not limited to people with congenital heart defects, and a small percentage of people who lack the proper enzymes to break down the drug.

Most of those ill-effects can be countered with better education on the safe use of the drug. We get governmental warnings and advice about the safe consumption of alcohol. And alcohol is regulated to ensure it is safe to consume in limited quantities. In terms of the temporary depression post-ecstacy use, the so-called 'come-down': how is that different to a hangover? In terms of long-term effects, the dangers of long-term alcohol consumption are well known, well-documented and consequently avoidable. Alcohol is highly addictive, whilst ecstacy has yet to be shown as such.

It seems to me a little off-kilter to point to drugs which are dangerous precisely because they are unregulated, but which are apparently safe when regulated, and say they are inherently dangerous. It's even more off-kilter to suggest that a heavily regulated (and therefore 'safe') drug, like alcohol, is inherently safe. It's the regulation of that drug that makes it safe and the lack of regulation of the other that makes it dangerous.