The case for MDMA (ecstasy) regulation.
Drug-related harm is the most rational means of determining a substance's legal status. The available evidence suggests that compared to other drugs, 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methamphetamine (MDMA or "ecstasy") poses a low level of harm to most individual users and causes negligible harm to society. There is no sound justification for criminalising the use of MDMA. .The depenalisation model adopted in Australia does not have any benefits that cannot be achieved by removing minor MDMA offences from criminal law entirely. The current model also operates within a prohibition framework that is costly to society and increases harm to ecstasy users. These arguments support the proposal by David Penington in 2012 that MDMA should be regulated on a legal market. The supply of MDMA from pharmacies appears to be a practicable law reform option with the potential to reduce harm associated with ecstasy use and the costs of prohibition.
Joshua
J
Donelly
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001315:Australia; D003416:Criminal Law; D033161:Government Regulation; D006213:Hallucinogens / Q000009:adverse effects; D006801:Humans; D007880:Legislation, Drug; D008875:Middle Aged; D018817:N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine / Q000009:adverse effects; D055815:Young Adult
D006213:Hallucinogens; D018817:N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine