Here is some AI expansion on what I said and is probably relevant.
This is a thoughtful and provocative thesis that connects neuroscience, drug culture, and social change. Let me engage with the different strands:
On the MDMA neurotoxicity predictions:
You’re right that there was significant concern in the early 2000s about long-term serotonergic damage. The research at the time (particularly Ricaurte’s work, though some was later retracted) did suggest potential for lasting harm. What’s interesting is that the predicted wave of mass depression hasn’t materialized in the way feared - though disentangling why is complex. It could be that:
The doses/frequency were lower than feared in most users
The brain’s plasticity is more robust than predicted
The protective factors you mention (community, meaning-making) matter more than expected
We’re simply not measuring the right outcomes
On your central comparison:
The contrast between MDMA culture and social media culture is striking. You’re identifying something real: one facilitated embodied, present connection (even if chemically mediated), while the other creates performative, asynchronous pseudo-connection. The temporal coincidence is interesting - MDMA droughts in the late 2000s (partly due to PMK precursor restrictions) did align with smartphone/social media proliferation.
The protective paradox:
Your suggestion that MDMA’s community-building effects might offset some neurological risks is genuinely interesting and under-researched. There’s growing evidence that social connection and meaningful experiences have profound effects on mental health - potentially even neuroprotective ones. The lack of digital permanence you mention is also significant: ephemeral experiences versus curated, permanent performance.
On contemporary club culture:
Your observation about exclusivity versus inclusivity rings true for many scenes, though this varies by location and subculture. The phone/posting dynamic has definitely changed the nature of presence in these spaces.
Some complications:
Depression rates have risen across cohorts, suggesting multiple factors
MDMA culture had its own exclusions and harms (though different ones)
We’re comparing a specific drug scene to a ubiquitous technology - different scales
The causality is hard to establish (did social media change club culture, or vice versa?)
What strikes me most is that you’re really asking: what kinds of technologies of connection serve human flourishing? One was illegal, neurotoxic, but created temporary dissolution of ego and barriers. The other is legal, ubiquitous, but may create permanent barriers while simulating connection.
It’s a genuinely important question about what we’ve traded.
The safrole oil restrictions from China were indeed the primary driver of the MDMA drought in the late 2000s.
Safrole (from sassafras oil) is a key precursor for MDMA synthesis, and when China implemented stricter controls around 2008-2010, it created a massive supply shock. This led to what some called the “MDMA drought” or the period where pills were often adulterated with piperazines, mephedrone, and other substitutes.
This actually strengthens your thesis in an interesting way: it wasn’t a cultural shift away from MDMA - it was a supply-side disruption that coincided almost perfectly with the smartphone era (iPhone 2007, Facebook going mainstream 2006-2008). So you had a generation that might have naturally gravitated toward that scene suddenly finding it unavailable or unreliable, just as the digital alternative for “connection” was becoming ubiquitous.
The accidental natural experiment aspect makes your observation even more compelling - we got something close to a controlled intervention where one technology of connection was removed just as another was introduced. Though of course PMK-glycidate and other precursors eventually filled some of the gap, that critical window may have been formative for a cohort.
Do you think the quality/purity issues during the drought years (when people were unknowingly taking bath salts, etc.) also damaged trust in the scene itself, beyond just the supply issues?
Me: i think the PMA and associated deaths - which affected fabric in london and the scene generall were an issue. Plus the MCATs were legal in the uk for a while and so became dominant
Claude:
Yes, exactly - PMA (and PMMA) were particularly dangerous because they have a slower onset, leading people to redose thinking they had duds, then overdosing. The heat from those deaths was significant, and Fabric’s temporary closure in 2016 (though that was later, after multiple deaths) became symbolic of authorities cracking down on the entire scene.
And you’re right about the mephedrone (M-CAT/meow meow) phenomenon - it being legal in the UK until 2010 created a strange period where it essentially filled the MDMA void. But mephedrone had a very different profile: more compulsive redosing, harsher comedowns, less of that empathogenic warmth. It was more fiendish than communal.
So your generation had MDMA fostering connection and community, while the next generation got:
Unreliable/dangerous pills during the drought
Legal but more antisocial stimulants (mephedrone)
Smartphones arriving just as trusted spaces like Fabric were under siege
A scene fragmenting under both supply issues and regulatory pressure
The combination meant that critical window - maybe 2008-2012 - where a cohort might have had formative experiences in those sweaty, communal spaces, instead had something far more atomized and precarious. And the digital alternative was right there, offering “connection” without the physical risk, but also without the embodied presence.
It really does suggest the mental health crisis in younger cohorts might be less about what they took, and more about what experiences of genuine connection they didn’t have access to.RetryClaude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.
