A Medical Account of Ecstasy's Effects

To the editors:

I congratulate you on last week's well done piece, "'E' is for Ecstasy" (FM, April 27). However, I feel compelled to add a few bits of information for completeness.

First of all, let's face the obvious. There is no such thing as a "safe high." Whether natural or synthetic, these chemical compounds were not made illegal on a whim; they were made illegal due to sound scientific and pharmaceutical research and/or testing.

Secondly, even though all of the users interviewed in the story used the very same drug, all seemed to have quite a bit of variation in their experiences and interpretations. Although, this happened quite a bit for all drugs (legal and illegal), the reason is never really explained. One theory, the Substance-Set-Setting model of pharmalogic drugs, postulates that it is not only substance (the drug) that effects experiences, but also the setting and most importantly the expectations of the drug. In some cases, expectations not only influence the experience, but have been shown to be more important than the drug being taken.

Although research is being conducted as we speak, a few things about the after effects of ecstasy (MDMA) seem well supported. Primarily, MDMA kills brain cells each and every time it is used. Moreover, the seats of memory (both short and long term) are affected for significant amounts of time (sometimes as long as seven years). Furthermore, there seems to be marked increases in various psychological disorders, including acute and chronic depression and schizophrenia.

John Ruggiero

April 25, 2000

The writer is a 4th year pharmacy student at Northeastern University.

Unfair Picture of S.C.

To the editors:

As a native South Carolinian, I take exception to Christina S.N. Lewis' claim that South Carolina "remain[s] a symbol of intolerance and bigotry" (Column, April 19). Lewis is correct in calling for the removal of the confederate flag from the statehouse dome. Yet Lewis mistakenly accords the meaning of that flag to all of South Carolina.

Recent events have clearly demonstrated that the Palmetto State is not defined or represented by the confederate flag. On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day this year, over 45,000 black and white South Carolinians rallied in Columbia to celebrate his legacy and call for removal of the flag. Two weeks ago, hundreds of South Carolinians, white and black, walked across the state carrying only the flags of America and South Carolina. In the spirit of 1960s civil rights marches, this walk gave a more accurate picture of contemporary South Carolina--diverse, inclusive and progressive. A remarkably broad group of churches, labor unions, Republicans, Democrats, the state Chamber of Commerce, and even Bob Jones University called for the removal of the flag. Clearly, the confederate flag does not represent the sentiment of most South Carolinians, and does not accurately reflect today's South Carolina.

Eli A. Poliakoff '00

April 21, 2000

•

A Flag, Not a Statement

To the editors:

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry while I read Christina S.N. Lewis' "Not Gone with the Wind." (Column, April 19). I finally decided not to laugh.

Lewis finds it hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, the "evil" whites who supported keeping the flag up didn't mean it as an insult to blacks at all. And the flag's intent truly is to honor the Confederate dead; whether this fact is misinterpreted shouldn't be the fault of the people who supported it. Furthermore, this is a battle flag (the Confederate naval battle flag, to be precise), the purpose of which is to fly over an army on the battlefield. At no time did this flag ever represent the political or governmental side of the Confederacy, which was the job of the Stars and Bars.

Britton C. Boyd

April 25, 2000

The writer is a student at Wesleyan College.