Ongoing MDMA hysteria

I just this absurd article about MDMA on a website called "The Conservative Voice."

You know, I consider myself a "conservative" person - I seek to conserve government influence, human freedom and dignity, and collective resources. At some point, the word "conservative" took on a different meaning, and its use in relation to drug policy varies wildly.

The National Institute of Drug Abuse issued its latest research report this year focusing on ecstasy abuse, citing that past-year use decreased from 3.2 million people over the age of 12 to 2.1 million. The same report said past-month users dropped by more than 200,000.

The article starts out by citing the National Institute of Drug Abuse, which to me is an inherently anti-conservative entity: Why does the government have an "institute" of drug abuse and how can we expect it will be truthful?

If we are to believe this report, it certainly runs counter to the (completely ridiculous) claim that independent research of MDMA will lead to increased use of it, since MAPS (probably my second-favorite DPR org) has been raising funds, conducting research, and getting great coverage of it, including a great Peter Jennings special which explored the subject in-depth in April of '04.

The second paragraph is just classic:

This is good news, but ecstasy (MDMA) abuse has spread to a wide range of other settings and demographic subgroups than just raves in the past few years. Despite growing evidence of its harmful effects, ecstasy still has a deceptive reputation as a “safe” drug among its abusers. The idea of just taking a pill with a design stamped on it makes it more attractive and appear less harmful. Additionally, popping a pill is more socially acceptable than snorting, smoking or injecting a drug.

Shameless but transparent editorializing mixed with sub-student newspaper writing and unsubstantiated hyperbole is a favorite cocktail of prohibitionists, but not usually conservatives. It's only the second paragraph and already they have given conservatism a bad name.

Is "popping a pill" more socially acceptable than smoking? I think not. It totally depends on the drugs in question, the setting, and the company. In general, popping pills of illicit drugs is much less socially acceptable than smoking cannabis or even tobacco.

I want to carry the last three paragraphs in full because together, they really do have comedic value:

There are other short-term effects of the drug such as impaired memory, difficulty processing information and trouble performing skilled activities such as motor vehicle operation. According to NIDA, ecstasy users report feeling anxiety, restlessness, irritability, sadness and depression in the week following moderate exposure to the drug.

Regular MDMA abusers demonstrate elevated levels of anxiety, impulsiveness, aggression, sleep disturbances, lack of appetite, and reduced interest in and pleasure from sex. The cycle of addiction continues by taking more of the same drug to escape the condition brought on by that drug, all the while causing more damage mentally and physically.

One former ecstasy user summed up the drug's effects oh him saying, "I felt so much emotional pain and was so depressed that I wanted to end my life and take all of the world's pain with me." The young man has since become drug-free, but not without help.

Again, lots of extreme information left completely unsubstantiated, unless you consider government propaganda to be substantiation.

The second of these paragraphs in particular demands laughter inclusive of spitting out whatever is in the subject's mouth. According to whom do regular MDMA "abusers" demonstrate these qualities? Are we still borrowing from NIDA? Do we care to quote some kind of study or paper, or is this still a part of the report on use?

And what is the obsession with connecting MDMA and sex? It becomes more of a crutch every time we hear about it. MDMA has never made me feel sexually aroused or even sexual. MDMA, to me, is a plutonic but euphoric experience. For what it's worth, I agree that something is fishy about MDMA in a spiritual sense - I think the euphoria may actually get in the way of discovery, but I have never heard anyone describe reduced interest or pleasure from sex as a result of MDMA.

The implication of the next sentence is that people use MDMA to escape this reduced interest and pleasure, and from there we might imply that MDMA is a sex drug, which of course is how it has been painted by people who fear it over the years.

The very last paragraph might be the most puzzling of all. Typos aside, it sounds like something Joe Biden would say, and he is an unabashed spineless liberal (and a jerk). Since when do conservatives rely on sob-story anecdotes from individuals who are clearly extreme cases?

And what's this? He needed help? Why didn't he pull himself up by his bootstraps? I'm all for drug treatment, but I don't have any interest in making the government a part of it. I think that the nationwide community of experienced drug users, in the absence of government influence, could provide all the drug treatment and guidance we need. The last paragraph seems to suggest that government "help" would be sound policy, although it's hard to tell.

Either way, this article deviates squarely from what I would consider conservative values. Does drug policy represent a divide in conservative thought?