Show All » Personal » Welcome

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Molly/Ecstasy - Makes a Come Back in New York Society

June 23, 2013. Read the entire article at the NYTimes Web Site

Molly: Pure, but Not So Simple

Excerpts from The New York Times Sunday Styles 

 ‘Molly is the big thing now. Coke is sort of grimy and passé. Weed smells too much and is also sort of low rent and junior high.’

At a party not long ago in Park Slope, Brooklyn, Kaitlin, a 22-year-old senior at Columbia University, was recalling the first time she was offered a drug called Molly, at the elegant Brooklyn home of a cultural figure she admired. “She was, like, 50, and she had been written about in the Talk of the Town,” said Kaitlin, who was wearing black skinny jeans and a tank top. “This woman was very smart and impressive.”  Since that first experience, Kaitlin has encountered Molly at a birthday celebration and at a dance party in Williamsburg.

Molly is not new, exactly. MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, was patented by Merckpharmaceuticals in 1914 and did not make much news until the 1970s, when psychotherapists began giving it to patients to get them to open up. It arrived at New York nightclubs in the late 1980s, and by the early ’90s it became the preferred drug.

Known for inducing feelings of euphoria, closeness and diminished anxiety, Ecstasy ($20 to $50 a dose) was quickly embraced by Wall Street traders and Chelsea gallerinas. But as demand increased, so did the adulterants in each pill (caffeine, speed, ephedrine, ketamine, LSD, talcum powder and aspirin, to name a few), and by the new millennium, the drug’s reputation had soured. Then, sometime in the last decade, it returned to clubs as Molly, a powder or crystalline form of MDMA that implied greater purity and safety: MDMA has found a new following in a generation of conscientious professionals who have never been to a rave and who are known for making careful choices in regard to their food, coffee and clothing. Molly - the name is thought to derive from “molecule”.

Robert Glatter, an emergency-room physician at Lenox Hill Hospital on the Upper East Side, might disagree. Dr. Glatter used to go months without hearing about Molly; now, he sees about four patients a month exhibiting its common side effects, which include teeth grindingdehydration, anxiety, insomniafever and loss of appetite. (More dangerous ones include hyperthermia, uncontrollable seizureshigh blood pressure and depression caused by a sudden drop in serotonin levels in the days after use, nicknamed Suicide Tuesdays.)

“Typically in the past we’d see rave kids, but now we’re seeing more people into their 30s and 40s experimenting with it,” Dr. Glatter said. “MDMA use has increased dramatically. It’s really a global phenomenon now.”

According to the United States Customs and Border Protection, there were 2,670 confiscations of MDMA in 2012, up from 186 in 2008.  But a greater worry for doctors and law enforcement officials is the many substances that people might be ingesting unknowingly. “Anyone can call something Molly to try to make sound less harmful,” said Mr. Payne of the D.E.A. “But it can be anything.”

According to an NYC doctor, many of the powders sold as Molly contain no MDMA whatsoever; others are synthetic concoctions designed to mimic the drug’s effects, Mr. Payne said. Despite promises of greater purity and potency, Molly, as its popularity had grown, is now thought to be as contaminated as Ecstasy once was.  “You’re fooling yourself if you think it’s somehow safer because it’s sold in powdered form.”

 Writer, IRINA ALEKSANDER, New York Times,  June 23 Edition

Posted By: STS  First @ 2:31:55 PM


Show All » Personal » Welcome

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Texas Passes Drug Screening Questionnaire

Rep. Rene Oliveira (D-Brownsville) said 2.1 percent of Americans receive unemployment benefits.

That’s 815,000 in Texas alone.

Oliveira said those who are mainly affected are innocent children.

"Lets go back to the concept of unemployment wouldn’t we all rather have a good paying job with some health insurance and a retirement program than be getting a little bit of unemployment," Oliveira said

Under the current law those fired for cause, including failing an employer sponsored drug test, don’t qualify for benefits. The changes will require workers who lose their jobs to fill out state questionnaires. Answers considered suspicious lead to drug tests.  Anyone failing their test would lose their benefits.

Some decision makers believe this bill will maintain a competent workplace.  "Our system is designed to assist people through a difficult period of their lives not to subsidize those who misuse the assistance to abuse drugs," State of Texas Gov. Rick Perry said

From the Valley, Rep. Terry Canales (D-Edinburg), Rene Oliveira and Bobby Guerra (D-McAllen) voted against the drug screening bill.Rep. Oscar Longoria (D-La Joya) and Eddie Lucio III (D-Harlingen) were absent during voting.

"If people have a drug problem or alcohol problem then we should be doing treatment.  They earned it it’s their money it’s just like social security you paid into that system," Oliveira said

Oliveira said he wants people to think about who is really being affected because this is not like food stamps or welfare.  Oliveira said it just didn’t seem right to him and this is money that those who are working have earned. Adding he believes the state has never invested enough in mental health or substance abuse.

Rep. Eddie Lucio III issued a statement to Action 4 News:"A bill mandating drug-tests for former employees who have already lost their jobs through no fault of their own would only add insult to injury," said Lucio. "Requiring individuals to prove to the state that they were drug-free is not a fair demand."

There is no trend of increased drug use among those on unemployment. Information is lacking to infer that people in need of government assistance are more likely to consume drugs.
"Quite frankly this bill is in search of a problem that does not exist, and would have a significant effect ona small group of employers," Lucio remarked. "Losing a job is already a very traumatic experience.With the current unemployment rate we should not be

Rep. Canales issued a statement to Action 4 News:

“I voted no on SB 21 because of concerns about the effectiveness and legality of the bill. In 2011 Florida passed a similar law and it was struck down by a Federal Court for being an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. That outcome echoed a prior 1999 ruling in Michigan that struck down the nation’s first-ever law requiring drug tests for public aid recipients.”

“In the four months that Florida’s law was in place, only 2.6 percent of more than 4,000 applicants tested positive for illegal drugs – a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of Floridians who use illegal drugs according to a federal estimate. The Florida program actually ended up costing the government $45,000 more than the amount of aid that would have been given to people who failed their drug tests.”

Posted By: STS  First @ 10:09:09 AM


Records 1 to 2 of 2

« Go Back