this article makes no sense. mdma is a hallucinogen that has to do with serotonin levels and is the safe(st) part of doing e. the dangerous part that usually leads to heart issues is the meth or coke that it's spiked with, because they're uppers. what generally happens is that people don't realize that e is mostly meth and mix it with even more meth or coke. it's not the bit of largely harmless mdma that gets them, it's the mix of meth, coke, speed or whatever else that pushes their blood pressure through the roof and starts bursting blood vessels.

it follows that 91% pure e is waaaaay safer than 58% pure e, because it's not the mdma that's dangerous but the stuff they splice it with.

my opinion on the drug is that i won't touch it because i know i'm probably getting some kind of upper (probably meth), and i don't do uppers. if i could get pure, regulated mdma i'd try it...i just have zero confidence in the street to produce it.

the end result is still that regulation is the way forward. but, somebody seems to have fucked up the reporting somewhere...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/12/mother-martha-fernback-died-ecstasy-legalisation-debate

ok. it turns out she took 500 mg.

a typical dose is 100 mg.

so, she overdosed in terms of how much, not in terms of purity. 500 mg would be dangerous at any mixture.

it would be nice if the press would stop treating mdma like heroin, but it's probably not likely.

it's not the case that this church is setting up peacefully and that it's followers are harmlessly going about their daily lives. this is a meeting point for people with discriminatory and hateful views, who will go out into the community and act those ideas out. this idea of religion as peaceful expression must be challenged. it's just simply not accurate. religion is systemic and hierarchical. it seeks power. it spreads propaganda. it's a political threat to the area and must be treated that way.

free speech is not protected speech. no sane person would suggest that people ought to be able to speak their mind without social consequences; the idea is that people ought to have the right to make the decision on whether it's worth taking the risk or not. these types of christian groups are taking a risk in spreading hateful messaging, and ought to deal with the consequences of it.

i do support the vandalism as a political statement, but it's only a first step. the next step needs to be boycotts against church members and other political actions designed to reduce their influence in the community and run them out of town.

it sounds harsh and it's against certain liberal values that are embedded in our cultural psyche, but we have to collectively understand that there is no peace with religion and allowing it to build is just ceding ground to enemy forces.