Drug Abuse

ECSTASY AND ILLEGAL DRUG DESIGN
A NEW CONCEPT IN DRUG USE
Alasdair J. M. Forsyth, Cerltre for Research on Drug Misuse, Glasgow, UK*

 

INTRODUCTION

Background
Ever since a drug called 'Ecstasy' first appeared in Scotland there has been much speculation about what this substance actually is. Initial reports in the media incorrectly suggested that Ecstasy was not a single chemical, but a mixture of drugs. Ecstasy was introduced to the Scottish public by the headline 'COCKTAILS OF DEATH. Warning on killer drug mix' (page 1, Evening Times, 8 December 1987).This article claimed that: 'called Ecstasy it is a deadly mixture of heroin, cocaine and LSD'. It was also alleged that Ecstasy was being used by the city's drug injectors, following a police crack down on heroin supplies. Since then, the Scottish media have alleged that several deaths have been caused by either Ecstasy or fake Ecstasy. Headlines such as 'HUNT FOR THE KILLER Ecstasy- Deadly rave drug claims two lives' (page 1, EveningTimes, 2 May 1994) have now acknowledged that Ecstasy is a substance more commonly used in the dance scene than by drug addicts. In common with earlier reports, the headlines of the mid- 1990s have failed to explain what Ecstasy contains or what fake Ecstasy might be. Such reports still prefer to utilise vague (and seductive) terms such as 'designer' drugs or drug 'cocktails'. These reports have also stated that Ecstasy is laced with drugs such as heroin, cocaine, ketamine (K) or LSD (Deadly Toll of Drugs Could Top 100, page 1, Evening Times, 24 September 1994; Scottish Women, Scottish Tele vision, 24 October 1994 ). Such speculation has not been borne out by any forensic evidence currently available. Given the paucity of other information available about Ecstasy it seems likely that these media reports would be given serious consideration by dance drug users. The situation is further complicated by the existence of a large number of brand names for Ecstasy. These brand names are said to refer to specific varieties of Ecstasy (tablets, capsules, etc.). Brand names of illegal products are uncontrolled by copyright and so may vary geographically, temporally or demographically. To date, reports from Ecstasy users about what they think the drug's contents and effects are have only been anecdotal.

 

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This article aims to highlight the great variety of forms of Ecstasy. Differences in users' beliefs about what Ecstasy contains and its effects are explored. It is also intended to identify some of the enormous number of brand names given to Ecstasy. It is intended then to make comparisons between popular brands of the drug and between different forms of Ecstasy over the user's career. This is done by using the self reports of Glasgow dance drug users. Details about over 300 individual forms of Ecstasy were provided by users. A physical description of each Ecstasy and its subjective effects were given by respondents.

The value of this article lies in that it will report what dance drug users think Ecstasy is. A large variety of brands of Ecstasy will be identified; where possible, an account of what the origin of each brand name might be is explained; the importance of these brand names in the dance drug culture is explained. From these data, a new trend in illegal drug use is identified and defined. Finally, the implications of this new concept in drug use are discussed. A brief history of Ecstasy (and MDMA) is provided to describe its evolution from a single substance to a concept drug.

 

THE EVOLUTION OF ECSTASY

The drug known as Ecstasy first came to prominence in the USA during the early 1980s. Ecstasy was a name given to 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or MDMA by a Los Angeles manufacturer of this, then still legal, drug. MDMA is a member of large family of psychoactive drugs known as the phenethylamines (Shulgin and Shulgin, 1991). MDMA was named 'Ecstasy' as a marketing ploy (Eisner, 1989). The illicit producer, who first used the term, said he preferred the name 'empathy', as this word was more fitting with the drug's effects. He believed that the name Ecstasy would sell better than empathy. The name did and the media also 'bought' the story. Had the name of the drug remained MDMA or adam (its first nickname) it may have been many more years before it came to the attention of the media, followed by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), and been made illegal in America. The DEA acted to make Ecstasy illegal in 1985, when it began to be sold openly 'over the bar' in Texas nightclubs (Beck,1990). To counteract unexpected objections by therapists who had been using the drug successfully for years, the DEA used emergency scheduling powers to make MDMA illegal without the need for prolonged legal hearings (Riedlinger, 1985; Wolfson, 1986). These powers had recently been introduced to counteract so-called 'designer drugs'. These drugs, such as the analogues of fentanyl (brand name 'china white') and meperidine ('synthetic heroin') were said by the DEA to have been produced by clandestine chemists so as to circumvent drug laws by creating new uncontrolled substances based on existing controlled drugs. The DEA contended that MDMA was a designer drug because of its similarity to an already illegal substance 3,4methylenedioxyamphetamine or MDA. The DEA's action was successful in spite of the fact that MDMA had been patented by the German pharmaceutical company Merck in 1916, before laws against drugs existed. Ironically some MDMA producers then began manufacturing another substance - 3, 4methylenedioxyethylamphetamine or MDEA - to circumvent this ruling. MDEA was given the brand name 'eve' to MDMA's 'adam'. MDEA was marketed as Ecstasy in an attempt to get round the law against MDMA (Beck,1990). This debate was academic in the UK where any substance containing a dimethoxyamphetamine structure was already illegal (Shapiro,1992). Therefore all three of the Ecstasy type drugs - MDMA, MDEA and MDA - were illegal in the UK before their use here had become widespread.

Since 1985 interest in Ecstasy use has grown in the UK compared with the USA. In the 'rave' ( dance drug) scene a whole new subculture of Ecstasy brand names and their alleged contents has grown up. Rather than simply being known as MDMA (or its chemical cousins, MDEA and MDA), there has been much speculation about what these Ecstasy brands contain. Such speculation has included the following: these brands contain no MDMA; dealers pUt heroin in them to get people addicted; they are complete fakes such as dog worming or fish tank deoxygenating tablets; what is sold as Ecstasy is real Iy a cocktail of different drugs. Such speculation, at all levels of interest, was certainly apparent in Glasgow at the time of this study.

 

METHOD

Sample
Data were collected from a sample of 135 respondents, who were interviewed between 1 December 1 1993 and 31 August 1994. Entry criteria in this sample were participation in the Glasgow dance drug scene ( 'rave scene') . Respondents were recruited via purposive snowballing by using key contacts from the Glasgow dance drug scene. The term 'dance drug scene' is used in this article to cover all of the dance/house/garage/techno/rave/club scene which has evolved in Scotland since 1988 and where (dance) drugs such as Ecstasy, amphetamines or LSD have allegedly been used. All respondents were recruited from a larger sample interviewed concurrently on a Scottish Office study examining the socio psychiatric effects of MDMA (Ditton,1995).

In the recruitment stage of this study, the author spent time participating in the dance scene to identify key contacts and observe local patterns of drug use. During this initial stage, it became clear that Ecstasy existed in a variety of forms that were being marketed differently.

The sample had a mean age of 24 years (range 14-44) and was 62% male. As can be seen in Table 1, such demographics are similar to those of many other drug use samples carried out in Scotland during the last decade. For example, the studies by Neville et al. (1988), Hammersley et al. (1989), Rahman et al. (1989), Morrison and Plant (1990), Lavelle et al. (1991), Forsyth et al. (1991) and Rhodesetal. (1993) all had a mean age between 24 and 26 years. However, in other ways this sample differed from 'traditional' drug research samples. Most (80%) had been in further education, although 40% of the total were currently unemployed. Most of these 'unemployed' did do irregular work, often in the dance drug scene itself. Only 10 individuals admitted to ever having injected drugs and only four had ever been imprisoned. Respondents in the studies cited in Table 1 were more typically drug injectors with low levels of employment and extensive custodial histories.

Of the 135 people interviewed 123 (91%) admitted to having used Ecstasy at least once. The data presented here come from these 123 Ecstasy users and four non-users of Ecstasy who were able to describe at least one Ecstasy they had encountered on the dance scene.

Instrument
Most of the respondents (n = 13) were interviewed at the University of Glasgow, the remainder at their homes, at youth clubs or at premises used by the local health trust. After completing an extensive questionnaire administered by the interviewer, each respondent was required to complete a self- complete page about the brands of Ecstasy that they had used. This final section of the interview took each subject about 5 minutes to complete. The mean duration of the whole interview was 103 minutes. Most of the data collected will be reported on elsewhere.

TABLE 1: Dance drug users and other drug samples compared

	Age (years)	(range)	Sex (%F)	Unemployed (%)	Crime (% convicted)	Injection (% ever done)
Dance drug (n = 135)	24	(14-44)	38	40	28	7
Forsyth (n = 23)	24	(21-30)	0	100	100	91
Hammersley (n = 149)	25	-	11	-	64*	-
Lavelle (n = 78)	24	(17-31)	27	90	72+	94
Morrison (n = 115)	26	-	31	57	43	28
Neville (n = 36)	26	-	20	-	56	100
Rahman (n = 50)	24	(17-35)	33	86	98	100
Rhodes (n = 503)	24	(16-41)	30	-	-	100

*Currently in prison
+Criminal activity in past year

Respondents were asked to draw three types of Ecstasy. Rather than any three types of Ecstasy, they were asked to draw the first Ecstasy that they had ever taken, the last Ecstasy that they had ever taken and the type of Ecstasy that they had taken most often. This ensured that a representative range of different types of Ecstasy over the career of each user was drawn. Thus any tendency for the respondent to misrepresent by only drawing favourites or 'snidEys' (fake Ecstasy) was eliminated. Respondents were further prompted to annotate each drawing by naming the brand and describing its appearance, size, colour, what effects it had on them and what drugs they thought were in it. They were also asked to note where and when they obtained it. Finally each Ecstasy was rated on a 7-point scale. This involved the respondent being presented with a card which had seven 'smiley faces' on it. The happiest face being rated as 1 (@)), through 4 (Q) to the saddest face rated 7 ((E)) . The four respondents who had not used Ecstasy were able to draw an Ecstasy that they had seen, but were unable to describe these further. A completed example of this instrument is given in Figure 1.

This unique method of describing drugs had several advantages over simply asking respondents about the drug. Each drawing provided a great deal of information about Ecstasy design. This was further enhanced by annotations and the supplementary question prompts. Aspects of the drug appearance such as shape, form, colour, size and texture were perhaps more obvious than even photographic evidence could provide. In any case, it would be impractical to find, photograph and analyse 300 or more drug samples.

Figure 1.

Assimilating the data gained by this method involved several complexities. For example, some respondents had taken Ecstasy fewer than three times. In other cases, the same brand was applicable to more than one of the drawing categories of Ecstasy (first, last and most often). In such instances respondents were told to repeat the drawing but record any other changes, such as different effects on different occasions. Also, as these drawings were self complete there was the possibility that the respondent may not give all the relevant information. In spite of these constraints all but one of the 123 Ecstasy-using respondents were able to produce at least one Ecstasy drawing.

 

RESULTS

A total of 360 samples of Ecstasy were drawn. Seven drawings were merely descriptions of tablets or capsules by non-users of Ecstasy; the remainder could be analysed in detail. As indicated by Figure 1, it was possible to gain a great deal of information from these users' annotated drawings. Results concerning the place and cost of purchase of Ecstasy will be reported elsewhere (for reasons of confidentiality these details have been removed from Figure 1). The results detailed here relate to the appearance, effectsand alleged contents of the Ecstasy shown by respondents' drawings.

Brand names

The first and most obvious finding of this study was the very large number of brands for Ecstasy known to these respondents. A total of 106 brand names were mentioned by this group. A full list of these Glasgow brand names is given in Table 2. Numbers on this table refer to the number of drawings obtained for each type of Ecstasy. Numbers in brackets refer to the number of respondents who reported using each Ecstasy, but it was not in one of their three drawing categories.

TABLE 2: Ecstasy brand names

FORM
E capsule	5 (2)		E powder	4 (1)		liquid E	2 (1)
Bayer E	0 (1)		foam/sponge E	1 (1)		French E	0 (1)
CONTENTS
madman	11 (3)		E130	1 (3)		triple X	2 (1)
phase 4 (5-8)	1 (1)		eve	0 (1)		adam and eve	0 (1)
sadadam hussain	0 (1)		pink 125	0 (1)		EVA	1 (0)
maddogs	0 (1)		E.A.	0 (1)		K capsule	-
madwoman	-
SHAPE
snowball	46 (17)		(disco) biscuit	31 (32)		white biscuit	3 (12)
mini snowball	3 (4)		pellet	9 (10)		brown biscuit	2 (4)
(disco/ham)burger	5 (1)		grey biscuit	1 (2)		yellow burger	0 (3)
pink snowball	0 (2)		white burger	0 (2)		ovals	0 (1)
rusk	0 (1)		yellow biscuit	0 (1)		pink biscuit	0 (1)
brown burger	0 (1)		star shaped	2 (0)		goof ball	-
COLOUR
dennis the menace	5 (20)		white caps(ule)	5 (12)		pink new york	4 (2)
manchester united	2 (3)		magic white	1 (2)		clear capsule	0 (3)
pink E	3 (0)		big white one	0 (1)		blue and white	0 (1)
pink and white	0 (1)		amber	0 (1)		pink panther	0 (1)
white E	1 (0)		red and yellow	1 (0)		M25	0 (1)
EMBOSSED
(white/love) dove	86 (5)		love hearts	2 (15)		double barrell	1 (4)
(white) diamond	3 (2)		robin/superdove	3 (1)		dimple	1 (2)
(magic) square/cube	2 (1)		cartoon	2 (1)		malcolm X	1 (1)
bermuda triangle	0 (2)		shocker	1 (1)		shamrock	0 (1)
pink barrel	0 (1)		PT	3 (0)		purple heart	0 (1)
blue heart	0 (1)		{pink) passion	-		clovers	-
SWEETSHOP
rhubarb & custard	7 (30)		lemori & lime	0 (1)		salt & pepper	0 (1)
black jack	2 (0)		parma violet	1 (0)
OTHER DRUGS
china white	12 (7)		coke burger	1 (8)		coke biscuit	1 (0)
MISCELLANEOUS
new yorker	5 (15)		flatliner	7 (10)		greyhound	0 (7)
(cali)fornian sunrise	2 (2)		clog	1 (1)		headfucker	1 (1)
flying saucer	0 (2)		banana split	1 (1)		china split	0 (1)
underground	0 (1)		amsterdamer	0 (1)		milky way	0 (1)
little bastard	0 (1)		sledgehammer	0 (1)		smoothie	0 (1)
(wee or small) boy	0 (1)		be bop	0 (1)		fantasy	0 (1)
snowman	0 (1)		mickey mouse	0 (1)		B52	0 (1)
rocket	0 (1)		eye-opener	0 (1)		strawberry	1 (0)
huggy	1 (0)		fantasia	-		blaster	-
emerald city	-		turbo	-		don't know	13 (45)

With over 90 users saying that they had taken it, white (or love) doves was by far the most common brand of Ecstasy mentioned. With almost one-quarter of all drawings and one-third of the most common Ecstasy category, this was the most common brand of Ecstasy throughout. However, a variety of 'don't know' answers constituted the most common answer for drawings in the last Ecstasy category (of course some of these may also be doves) .

It can also be seen that the nature of these brand names varies greatly. Some names are obviously referring to a drug ( e .g. 'white capsule' ), whereas others contain more cryptic messages (e.g. 'triple X'). Each brand name can be viewed as a marketing strategy. Such names may derive from the Ecstasy's appearance, shape, colour, alleged contents, alleged source or alleged psychoactive effects. In Table 2, brand names have been grouped according to one of eight possible naming strategies. A summary of each of these marketing strategies with possible examples of name derivation is given below.

Form
This is the simplest and most obvious way of naming Ecstasy- principally whether it comes as a capsule, liquid or powder rather than the usual tablet from.

Drug contents
The brand names in this group are said to give a clue to the drug's contents. For example, 'triple X' allegedly contained all three Ecstasy type drugs: MDMA, MDEA and MDA. The name 'Madman', on the other hand, implies pure MDMA (adam). 'Adam and eve' should contain MDMA and MDEA and 'eve' or 'madwoman' only MDEA. 'Eva' and tablets with the letter 'E' embossed on one side and 'A' on the other were said to contain amphetamine plus MDEA and MDMA respectively. Another chemistry selling point is strength rather than purity. Names such as 'E 130' (written on side of capsule ) and 'pink 125' (a tablet) imply strengths greater than the acknowledged standard dose of MDMA, at 120 mg. It can be seen that the 'white cap' drawn in Figure 1 (most often used Ecstasy) has 125 mg on its side. The Ecstasy called 'phase 4' was said to refer to the amount of amphetamine it contained, being sufficient to last for 4 hours. Other phase types of Ecstasy reputedly could last up to 8 hours. 'K capsule' allegedly contained MDMA plus the disassociative anaesthetic ketamine or K.

Shape
Many types of Ecstasy were simply named after their physical appearance. For example, 'snowballs' refer to a distinctive small, rough edged, almost spherical pill. 'Burgers' are shaped like a burger, when viewed on their side (a shape common to many pharmaceutical products). 'Biscuits' are large, flat, scored pills. These have the distinctive feature of being speckled, appearing to be made up of a conglomeration of small rough granules, like a biscuit. Each of these shapes existed in a variety of colours.

Colour
The colour of a tablet was often its only form of identification. Ecstasy may be described simply as either 'pink E' or 'white E'. Other forms were more sophisticated. For example 'M25' was a tablet either pink with a blue stripe across the middle or blue coloured with a pink stripe. This Ecstasy was said to have been popular during 1989, after the 'Bright Bill' which outlawed 'acidhouse' parties. At this time partygoers drove in convoys between service stations on the M25 London orbital and other motorways in search of clandestine parties at secret locations, which became known in the media as 'raves' (Newcombe, 1991; Redhead, 1991; Reitveld, 1991).

The shiny colours of capsule Ecstasy more readily lent itself to names in this group than was the case for tablets. For example, red and black capsules were known as either 'manchester united' or 'dennis the menace'. The former name is said to reflect the involvement of international football casuals in the early spread of Ecstasy use (Gilman ( 1994) details friendly encounters in 1991 between supporters of rival Manchester and Yorkshire clubs, at raves on the eve of matches; on the eve of the corresponding fixture the previous season, before the arrival of Ecstasy, such encounters would have resulted in violence). The latter name refers to a rebellious character in the children's comic The Beano. It is possible that either of these two brand names could be applied to the same batch of Ecstasy, the name depending on who it was being marketed towards.

Sweetshop
This group of Ecstasy brand names is taken from the notion, put forward by Parker and Measham (1994), of young people having a pick n ' mix approach to drug taking. In their paper, the use of different types of drugs are likened to the consumption of different types of sweets. By extending the analogy Ecstasy could be regarded as one such sweet. Ecstasy may be seen as either a special sweet that can come in a variety of different flavours or as a 'lucky bag' drug, the contents of which remain unknown until the bag is opened (the drug used).

Several types of Ecstasy are named after varieties of children's sweets. This is because of their resemblance to certain sweets in terms of their sizes, shapes and colours. Such Ecstasy includes 'parma violet', 'lemon and lime' and 'rhubarb and custard'. Rhubarb and custard is a particularly interesting name. During field work it was stated the 'barb' in rhubarb referred to the drug being 50% MDMA and 50% barbiturate. Ecstasy (MDMA) is an amphetamine drug. In the 1960s amphetamines were often mixed with barbiturates both by pharmaceutical companies and illicit drug users of the 'mods and rockers' era. Such amphetamine/barbiturate ( upper/downer ) compounds are said to produce a '1 + 1 = 3 synergy'. This occurs by the positive effects of each drug overcoming the negative effects of the other (Grinspoon and Hedblom,1975). For example, amphetamines would remove the drowsy feeling produced by barbiturates without diminishing its pleasurable sensation. In this way the original Ecstasy called rhubarb and custard was alleged to have been marketed. However, it seems unlikely that all the types of Ecstasysold inared and yellow capsule are a true rhubarb and custard, containing any barbiturate. A similar story surrounds 'love heart' Ecstasy (also known as passion). Love hearts are also another variety of children's sweet. This type of Ecstasy, however, is usually identified by having a heart shape embossed in its centre. Love heart Ecstasy is said to contain methaqualone and MDMA (Sawyer, 1992). Methaqualone is another depressant drug commonly mixed with amphetamines in the 1960s, both illicitly and pharmaceutically (Durophet-M). Another compound containing amphetamine and the barbiturate, amylobarbitone, was then marketed in a heart shaped pill (Drinamyl) nicknamed 'purple hearts' by illicit drug users. Curiously, another type of Ecstasy mentioned in this sample was also called purple hearts, another 'goof ball' (a 1960s name for barbiturates and before that heroin/stimulant cocktails).

Other drugs
Other forms of Ecstasy simply imply other drug con tents. Even 'china white' is used for a form of Ecstasy. Whether this name ever implied that 3-methylfentanyl was among its contents is not known. The brand names 'coke biscuit' and 'coke burger' do imply cocaine is among these pills' contents. However, like the heroin in Ecstasy rumours, one wonders if an effective dose of cocaine could be delivered in a quarter gram tablet alongside some MDMA, bulk products and adulterants. The name 'coke burger' may have another possible derivation. In fast food restaurants popular with children (e.g. Burger King), Coke, a soft drink which used to contain cocaine, is sold as the traditional American accompaniment to hamburger. Another form of Ecstasy is called 'New Yorker', coincidentally also the name of a type of burger. There is even an Edinburgh dance club called Burger Queen, which plagiarises the Burger King logo to market itself. The children's fast food restaurant analogy may be as appropriate as the sweetshop analogy. Indeed, Howes (1990) describes the club scene as class stratified whereby the customers consume burger Ecstasy while the VIP guests use 'additive-free MDMA powder (a comparison with health foods).

Embossed
If burgers and biscuits have a reputation for poor quality, Ecstasy tablets that have shapes embossed on them are said to enjoy better reputations. Embossed designs on Ecstasy are thought of as quality markers (like lions stamped on eggs). Such markings undoubtedly make these pills harder to fake. In spite of this, these indelibly stamped brands still manage to produce a variety of nicknames. For example, scored pills marked with the letters 'P' and 'T' (on the opposite side of the scoring) were called either 'pete tongs' (after a DJ ), 'partick thistle' (another football team), 'party timers' or 'peeping toms'. The Ecstasy called 'shamrocks' was probably the same as one known as 'clovers', though no respondent had taken this latter name. 'Squares' and 'diamonds' both appeared in the sample at the same time during field work (April 1994). Only those interviewed at the youth club (all young, working class users) cited squares. Respondents interviewed elsewhere (attendees of more middle class Glasgow clubs) all cited diamonds. Looking at their drawings and rotating the page by 45° turned a square into a diamond (at least on paper) . Furthermore, in this study, one respondent (an ex-dealer) said that he had seen diamond Ecstasy, but that it was just the same as types he had sold several years before under the brand names 'flying saucer' ( also known as 'compact disc').

Among all brands of Ecstasy those stamped with a dove were the most readily remembered, although some respondents chose to draw the side of the tablet that was scored rather than attempt to draw a dove shape. A variety of these 'doves' were identified including 'double doves' (embossed both sides) and 'super doves' also known as 'white rebins' (which were stamped with a sitting bird resembling a robin). Even the standard 'white dove' was 'love dove' could vary. Varieties included 'both wings up', 'both wings down' and 'one wing up one wing down', also known as 'turtle dove'. Since fieldwork ceased another variety, 'beige dove', has appeared, although this has a poorer reputation than other dove Ecstasy.

Miscellaneous
A variety of other Ecstasy brands are more difficult to categorise. Possible themes might include implied effects or place of manufacture. Names such as 'eye opener' or 'rocket' may imply stimulant properties. In a similar way the prefix 'disco' in front of a brand name (e.g. disco burgers, disco biscuits) might be said to imply dancing properties, as well as identifying the marketplace of these tablets. Macho names such as 'head fucker', 'sledgehammer' and 'little bastard' may imply strength in the minds of some consumers. 'Fantasy' and 'fantasia' may be intended to imply hallucinogenic properties. Indeed, these two brands were said to contain MDMA plus LSD and mescaline respectively.

Other Ecstasy brand names use children's comic character names. This is a theme previously used in naming varieties of LSD. LSD blotters have long been identified by having cartoon pictures, such as super mario, superman, pink panther, batman, ET, brad simpson and donald duck, placed on thelll. Ecstasy varieties that have exploited this theme, in spite of being tablets or capsules rather than pictures on cardboard, include 'mickey mouse', 'cartoon', 'dennis the menace' and, in common with LSI), 'pink panther' ('strawberry' is a name also common to both drugs). Names such as 'amsterdammer' and 'clog' imply Dutch origin. Ecstasy made in the Netherlands is known to have been exported to Britain (The Economist, 1993). Among users, Dutch Ecstasy might have a better reputation than that made locally.

Some Ecstasy brand names seem to provide a historical record. The brand name culture appears to have exploded during the early 1 990s. The major historical events of that time are reflected in names such as 'B52' and 'saddam hussain'. M25 Ecstasy provides a historical snapshot of the development of the dance drug scene itself.

Differences between types of Ecstasy
Each of the three categories of Ecstasy was compared across users' careers by using the smiley face rating scale. With an overall mean score of 2.9, respondents consistently scored Ecstasy with happy smiley faces (above 4 on the faces scale). The score for their first Ecstasy was 2.9 (n = 117), most often used Ecstasy scored 2.6 (n = 110) and last Ecstasy 3.1 (n = 110). Paired t tests were conducted between each category. No significant differences were found between ratings of first and most used Ecstasy or first and last Ecstasy; however, there was a significant difference in rating between most used and last Ecstasy (t = 2.53;p >0.05). This may indicate a belief or myth that the quality of Ecstasy has reduced over the years. Whether this decline in quality is real or simply due to tolerance is a myth is unknown. Even if Ecstasy has changed, it is not known whether this is qualitative, as a result of the changing brands of Ecstasy, or quantitative, reflective of a general reduction in the strength of Ecstasy.

Beliefs about Ecstasy contents
Another way to examine Ecstasy quality is by com paring what users believed the drug's contents were.

Table 3 shows what drugs respondents thought were in each of the types of Ecstasy that they drew. The first Ecstasy used was the most likely of the three categories that users thought of as pure MDMA However, these differences are not large, and the difference in rating between most often and last Ecstasy does not appear to be supported by beliefs about purity.

TABLE 3: Alleged contents of Ecstasy

Drugs in ecstasy	All E			Dove			Biscuit			Snowball
	n	%		n	%		n	%		n	%
Ecstasy	22	5.6		9	12.2		1	3.3		1	2.6
MDMA	117	36.7		36	48.6		10	33.3		8	21.1
MDA	4	1.3		0	-		1	3.3		1	2.6
MD?	2	0.6		1	1.3		0	-		0	-
MDMA + MDEA	2	0.6		1	1.3		0	-		0	-
MDMA etc.	147	46.1		47	63.5		12	40.0		10	26.3
MDMA +MDA + opiate	1	0.3		1	1.3		0	-		0	-
MDMA + fentanyl	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
MDMA + 'drug + 'poison'	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
MDMA + 'lemsip'	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
MDMA + 'downer'	1	0.3		1	1.3		0	-		0	-
MDMA + ?	4	1.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
heroin + cocaine + K + MDMA + MDA	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
heroin + amphetamine + MDMA	7	2.2		1	1.3		0	-		1	2.6
heroin + LSD + MDMA	2	0.6		0	-		1	3.3		1	2.6
heroin + K + MDMA	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
heroin + MDMA	8	2.5		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
heroin + MDMA + MD?	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
cocaine + K + MDMA	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
cocaine + MDMA	4	1.3		1	1.3		1	3.3		0	-
amphetamine + LSD + MDMA	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
amphetamime + MDMA	22	6.9		1	1.3		5	16.6		3	7.9
LSD + MDMA	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
K + MDMA	4	1.3		0	-		0	-		3	7.9
MDMA + other	64	20.1		5	6.8		7	23.3		15	39.5
heroin	7	2.2		0	-		1	3.3		4	10.5
heroin + amphetamine	3	0.9		1	1.3		0	-		0	-
heroin + amphetamine + LSD	2	0.6		1	1.3		0	-		0	-
heroin + 'downer'	2	0.6		0	-		1	3.3		1	2.6
cocaine + amphetamine + LSD + K	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
cocaine + amphetamine + LSD	5	1.6		1	1.3		0	-		2	5.3
cocaine + LSD + heroin	3	0.9		2	2.7		0	-		0	-
amphetamine	9	2.8		3	4.1		1	3.3		0	-
amphetamine + LSD	5	1.6		0	-		0	-		0	-
amphetamine + ?	1	0.3		1	1.3		0	-		0	-
LSD	1	0.9		0	-		0	-		0	-
K	1	0.9		0	-		0	-		0	-
every/all/any/mix	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.6
not MDMA	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
Other	42	13.2		9	12.2		3	10.0		8	21.1
don't know	65	20.4		13	17.6		8	26.6		5	13.2
Total	319			74			30			38

From Table 3, it is clear that users believe in a very large number of possibilities for Ecstasy contents other than pure MDMA. These inclucled other phenethylamine drugs (alone or in combination with MDMA) and other drugs, either alone or in combination with MDMA or other phenethylamines (MDA or MDEA). Also some respondents did not know what was in some types of Ecstasy and/or simply knew their contents as Ecstasy. MDMA was most consistently identified as the sole 'ingredient' of Ecstasy (46.1%). A total of 34 other 'recipes' for Ecstasy were given, plus the responses 'not MDMA', 'don't know' and simply 'Ecstasy'. These other recipes cited a wide range of other drugs including stimulants, depressants, opiates, anaesthetics and hallucinogens.

The obvious way to check these beliefs about Ecstasy's contents is by forensic analysis. There are two ways in which forensic results from testing Ecstasy can vary. First, the notion of purity; the purity of an Ecstasy sample is whether it consists of a single psychoactive substance, such as MDMA, or if it consists of a compound of different drugs. Second, forensic testing can give the strength of the drugs in an Ecstasy sample. For example, two apparently similar tablets may contain only MDMA, but one may contain many times as much MDMA as the other.

Unfortunately, very little results from such testing is currently available. Samples analysed by Select magazine (Sawyer, 1992) do seem to support the notion of drug cocktails and clues in their names, as detailed above for rhubarb and custard, passion/love heart and fantasy Ecstasy. Others do not. Although Lifeline's (April 1993) sample shows 'tripe X' as having all three types of Ecstasy drug, the purity is so low as to make a single dose of this compound inactive. Samples obtained by the Glasgow Ecstasy study (January-June 1994) were striking in that they contained MDMA and little else (see Ditton, 1995). The Glasgow samples also appeared to be much stronger than Lifeline's. Eternity ( 1995) magazine found a PT Ecstasy to be high strength MDEA. Gay Times (September 1994) and Mixmag (December I 1994) also tested Ecstasy samples that did not give I tablet strength. All testers except Lifeline and Selectanalysed doves and found them to be MDMA or MDMA plus some MDEA. Tablets sold under the brand name 'biscuit', when analysed, were found to be more variable in both strength and purity of content. Lifeline analysed a snowball and this transpired to be strong MDA. This may explain its differing effects from other Ecstasy brands (Climko et al., 1987). Indeed the Glasgow Ecstasy study also analysed respondents' hair for the presence/absence of MDMA, MDA, opiates, methylamphetamines and amphetamines. MDA was present in the hair of many respondents. Many of these said that they had used snowballs (see Ditton, 1995). The problem with forensic testing is that no two types of Ecstasy are ever guaranteed to be the same. This means that comparisons between forensic results and users' descriptions require a degree of caution, but may be more reliable than comparing users' descriptions.

TABLE 4: Subjective effects of Ecstasy

Effect	All E			Dove			Biscuit			Snowball
	n	%		n	%		n	%		n	%
ecstasy	4	1.3		1	1.2		0	-		1	2.3
feel good	54	16.9		14	17.1		3	10.0		8	18.2
feel bad	9	2.8		3	3.7		2	6.7		0	-
happy/bliss	67	21.0		23	28.1		5	16.7		7	15.9
enjoy	4	1.3		2	2.4		0	-		1	2.3
euphoria	52	16.3		14	17.1		5	16.7		6	13.6
no euphoria	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		0	-
love(ing)	14	4.4		4	4.9		2	6.7		1	2.3
sexy(ual)	10	3.1		4	4.9		0	-		0	-
orgasm	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
pleasure	11	3.5		2	2.4		1	3.3		1	2.3
well being	6	1.9		3	3.7		0	-		0	-
empathy	28	8.8		10	12.2		3	10.0		4	9.1
social	14	4.4		4	4.9		1	3.3		3	6.8
talkative	9	2.8		3	3.7		0	-		0	-
disinhibited	13	4.1		5	6.1		1	3.3		1	2.3
enthusiastic	6	1.9		4	4.9		0	-		1	2.3
fun time	3	0.9		2	2.4		0	-		0	-
self esteeem/ego	3	0.9		1	1.2		1	3.3		0	-
mellow	5	1.6		4	4.9		0	-		0	-
floating	3	0.9		0	-		1	3.3		0	-
bouncy	2	0.6		1	1.2		1	3.3		0	-
peaceful	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
tuned in/to vibe	3	0.9		0	-		2	6.7		0	-
musical	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.3
want to dance	29	9.1		12	14.6		2	6.7		2	4.6
tired	9	2.8		1	1.2		0	-		3	6.8
awake/alert	7	2.2		0	-		2	6.7		1	2.3
lucid	6	1.9		1	1.2		1	1.3		0	-
confused	12	3.8		1	1.2		2	6.7		3	6.8
panic	4	1.3		2	2.4		0	-		1	2.3
relaxed	12	3.8		2	2.4		1	3.3		1	2.3
paranoid	3	0.9		2	1.2		0	-		0	-
contented	9	2.8		2	2.4		1	3.3		2	4.6
excited	3	0.9		0	-		0	-		0	-
energy	39	12.2		13	15.9		7	23.3		4	9.10
rush	30	9.4		9	11.0		0	-		7	15.9
high/up	19	6.0		6	7.3		1	3.3		2	4.6
hallucinate	22	6.9		3	3.7		0	-		6	13.6
trippy	23	7.2		3	3.7		1	3.3		5	11.4
not trippy	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		0	-
speedy	26	8.2		4	4.9		2	6.7		2	4.6
not speedy	2	0.6		1	1.2		1	3.3		0	-
smacky	8	2.5		1	1.2		0	-		3	6.8
gouchy	11	3.5		0	-		2	6.7		3	6.8
like buzzing gas	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
drunk	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
alcohol effect	4	1.3		2	2.4		0	-		0	-
hot	5	1.6		0	-		0	-		1	2.3
nausea	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		0	-
vomit	8	2.5		3	3.7		1	3.3		1	2.3
off balance	4	1.3		1	1.2		0	-		1	2.3
eye wiggle	7	2.2		1	1.2		0	-		1	2.3
jaw grind	7	2.2		1	1.2		0	-		0	-
numb	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		0	-
motionless	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		1	2.3
slowed down	9	2.8		0	-		1	3.3		3	6.8
shakey	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
stomach ache	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
amnesia	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
insomnia	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
tactile	3	0.9		2	2.4		0	-		1	2.3
laughter	4	1.3		2	2.4		0	-		0	-
drugged	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		2	4.6
spaced	6	1.9		0	-		2	6.7		2	4.6
wasted	5	1.6		2	1.2		0	-		2	4.6
mood enhance	4	1.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.3
mind expand	4	1.3		3	3.7		0	-		0	-
new values	2	0.6		2	2.4		0	-		0	-
short action	9	2.8		1	1.2		1	3.3		0	-
long action	8	2.5		0	-		0	-		3	6.8
clean	4	1.3		1	1.2		1	3.3		0	-
smoothe	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		0	-
mild	10	3.1		1	1.2		0	-		0	-
heavy	2	0.6		1	1.2		0	-		1	2.3
mild come up	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
heavy come up	1	0.3		1	1.2		0	-		0	-
quick come up	2	0.6		2	2.4		0	-		0	-
slow come up	3	0.9		0	-		0	-		1	2.3
good come up	3	0.9		1	1.2		0	-		1	2.3
bad come up	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
slow come down	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		1	2.3
quick come down	1	0.3		1	1.2		0	-		0	-
good come down	6	1.9		1	1.2		0	-		0	-
bad come down	3	0.9		0	-		0	-		0	-
want more	2	0.6		2	2.4		0	-		0	-
spaced for days	1	0.3		0	-		0	-		0	-
good for days	2	0.6		0	-		0	-		0	-
strong E	7	2.2		0	-		1	3.3		2	4.6
weak E	6	1.9		2	2.4		1	3.3		0	-
good E	25	7.8		8	9.8		2	6.7		3	6.8
bad E	9	2.8		1	1.2		0	-		0	-
no effexcts	8	2.5		0	-		1	3.3		0	-
varied	4	1.3		2	2.4		0	-		2	4.6
don't know	4	1.3		0	-		0	-		1	2.3
Total	319			82			30			44

 

EFFECTS OF ECSTASY

Table 4 gives the subjective effects of each category of Ecstasy, as stated by respondents when annotating their drawings. In spite of the very large range of responses given here, there were little differences between first, last and most often used Ecstasy type. The most common response for each was simply that it 'makes you feel happy' (21.0%), other common responses (over 10.0%) being 'euphoria', 'feeling good' and 'energetic', although this last effect appeared to have declined by the time of last Ecstasy. Reports of having a 'rush', feelings of 'empathy' and wanting to 'dance' were only slightly less often cited.

As with much of the other self-reports given here, these subjective effects need to be viewed with some caution. This is because it is not known what other drugs the respondents had consumed at the same time as each Ecstasy drawn. It is known that this groupusedatotalof67 different drugs (containing51 discrete chemicals), many of which were used as dance drugs, often at the same time as Ecstasy. Other drugs co used with an Ecstasy may act as synergists or antagonists. This may either potentiate or negate the effects of an Ecstasy which itself has unknown contents. Such drug interaction may wrongly be attributed by the user only to the Ecstasy tablet. The implications of this pattern of polydrug use are discussed elsewhere (Forsyth, 1995, unpublished dal:a).

 

Ecstasy brand preference

The Ecstasy brands known as (white or love) dove (n = 86), (disco) biscuit (n = 31 ) and snowball (n = 46) were the most often drawn and were represented across all three categories of drawing. Apart from these three brands, only madman Ecstasy had more than 10 drawings (n = 11), all of which were in the last Ecstasy category. Also, these brands could be said to represent a good reputation Ecstasy (white dove), a poorer reputation Ecstasy (disco biscuit) and an Ecstasy believed to be strong but not 'real' (MDMA) Ecstasy ( snowball ) . The numbers of these could have been increased further by the addition of several lesser varieties of each brand to the total (e.g. super dove, brown biscuit, mini snowball), but this was not done here to minimise inconsistencies within each brand. Each of these three brands (including their lesser varieties) have a unique appearance, making confusion with other types of Ecstasy unlikely. For example, any coloured capsule could contain any drug compound, but tablets that have doves embossed on them having a biscuit-like construction or snowball shape are less likely to be different. For these reasons, the three brands were selected as being most suitable for making brand comparisons.

Table 3 also gives the alleged contents of types of Ecstasy by the three most often drawn brands. Doves were thought to be the purest in MDMA (or Ecstasy), snowballs the least. The snowball brand appeared to vary most in content. Snowballs were most often cited as MDMA plus another drug(s). Many concoctions were given for the contents of snowballs, especially those containing K (ketamine) and heroin.

Table 4 compares the subjective effects experienced by users after ingesting each of these brands. Doves appeared more likely to make respondents happy, biscuits more likely to make them energetic and snowballs to make them feel good. The snowball brand was most varied in its effects, especially other ti drug-like effects. It is interesting to note that snow- d ball Ecstasy was the brand most likely to produce effects similar to those produced by other drugs, such as 'trippy' or 'hallucinate'. This may reflect the greater variety of drug cocktails that snowballs were said to have in Table 3.

The initial assumption about the reputations of these three brands was confirmed from respondents' ratings of each. Doves scored highest (2.4), then snowballs (3 .0) and lastly biscuits (3.3 ) on the smiley faces scale.

 

Describing the appearance of Ecstasy

In spite of the large number of brands, types of Ecstasy were most often described as 'small' (31.2%), or a mean estimated diameter of only 9.2 mm ( this figure includes capsules which were larger than pills). This varied among brands with disco biscuits being more often described as 'big' or 'very big' (43.8%) relative to other forms of the drug. Biscuits had a mean estimated diameter of 9.0 mm, doves 7.3 mm and snowballs only 7.0 mm, both the last two being described as 'small' (43.6% and 45.5% respectively).

Most forms of Ecstasy came in pill (tablet) form. The design of these pills varied greatly, the most common drawing being that of a pill with a dove embossed on it ( 14.9%). This reflects the dominance of the white dove brand (35.3% of the most often used Ecstasy category). There were only 34 (9.4%) drawings of capsules, six ( 1.7%) of powders and two (0.6%) of liquid Ecstasy (both forms of liquid E were in the first Ecstasy category and used in the late 1980s). Sixty per cent of all forms of Ecstasy called doves were described as being a pill with a dove embossed on it. One-third of all disco biscuits were prescribed as flat scored pills and one-third of snowballs as round/domed pills, respectively the most common answers for describing the shape of each of these brands.

White was by far the most common colour for ecstasy. Around two thirds (67.8%) of all drawings were described as white. This figure does not include range of descriptions, such as partly white, 'off white', 'cream', 'beige' or 'white speckled'. Unsurprisingly, the brands named white dove and snowball were predominantly white (86.8% and 92.% respectively). Biscuits, on the other hand, were usually prescribed as 'brown', 'brown speckled' or a variety of brown in colour (63.3%).

 

DISCUSSION

From the results presented here it is clear that Ecstasy does not exist in just one recognisable form as is the case with other drugs commonly used in Scotland, such as amphetamines or temazepam. This makes it unclear what the drug's actual content is. So does the name of an Ecstasy give a reliable clue to its contents ?

It can be seen that the various brand names of Ecstasy can be put into one or more of several groups. It is not known whether these brand names were coined at source or by users in Glasgow. The origins of names such as doves are obvious and likely to be in universal usage among Ecstasy users. Anecdotally, dealers in Glasgow clubs were said to be making up names for types of Ecstasy 'on the spot' when asked by customers what brand of Ecstasy it was they were buying. Indeed one dealer interviewed in this study said he called his Ecstasy 'clog' because it 'looked like a clog and it came from Holland'. Other names may have stuck after the drug had changed. For example, rhubarb and custard was supposed to contain phenobarbitone plus MDMA. However, any red and yellow capsule is likely to be called rhubarb and custard. These are unlikely to contain any barbiturates and are not even guaranteed to contain any MDMA. Indeed, nobody who drew a rhubarb and custard mentioned phenobarbitone. Also some respondents drew tablets called white doves which were neither white nor embossed with a dove. The basic problem here is that some types of Ecstasy with different names may be the same whereas others with the same name may be different.

Brand names also vary over time and place. This sample was all Glaswegian and the initiation of their Ecstasy-using careers varied from 1985 to 1993. In spite of this, noting which brand of Ecstasy respondents used first, most often and last revealed a large variety of brand names. Elsewhere, a variety of other brand names have been cited (Lifeline, 1993; Mixmag, 1994; Gay Times, 1994; Eternity, 1995). Although not mentioned by respondents in this study, brand names, such as 'orgasm', 'power packs', 'green burgers', 'red devils' (a barbiturate name), 'bisons' and 'dolphins' (embossed), are designed along a nomenclature that would be familiar to Glaswegian Ecstasy users.

Even forms of Ecstasy available at the same time in the same place may vary for many reasons. Different Ecstasy producers may make Ecstasy to different standards. Batches made by the same producer may differ. It is possible that different Ecstasy producers may use the same pill manufacturer. This means, for example, that just because one tablet stamped with the letters 'PT' contained 196 mg of MDEA (Eternity, 1995), it does not follow that the next one will. Unembossed tablets are even more likely to vary. Any tablet could in theory be sold as Ecstasy. These may have included dog laxatives (The Sun, 13 January 1995), tropical fish deoxygenating tablets (Sawyer,1992), anti smoking tablets (Daily Record, 10June 1993) and even potentially lethal drugs such as paracetamol (Etemity,1995). Powders, which may have been pure MDMA at source, risk adulteration in a similar fashion to traditional drugs (e.g. heroin, cocaine and amphetamine) during transfer along dealing chains. Capsules are at even more at risk of adulteration than powders, because their contents can be hidden from the consumer. Given the potential for abuse, it is perhaps surprising that any real Ecstasy reaches the consumer at all. It is even more surprising that consumers should risk buying this potentially polluted product.

That drugs free from legal controls should be 'cut' (adulterated) to increase profits by reducing purity is nothing new. What is new about this drug is that users reported differences in content between forms of Ecstasy, rather than simply different strengths. Why users should think that Ecstasy contains such a variety of substances is unclear. Disinformation in the media must have played a part, but such drug mythologies can also arise spontaneously. Jay Stevens' book, Storming Heaven (1987), details how different colours of LSD tablets were attributed with different subjective drug effects by users. These American 1960s drug users were in fact consuming LSD made from the same batch which had merely been dyed different colours by its manufacturer. Something akin to this appears to be happening among 1990s Ecstasy users. Descriptions such as a 'smacky E' or a 'speedy E' have been applied to Ecstasy, even by users who have never (knowingly) taken heroin or amphetamine (The Economist, 1993 ) .

 

Unique aspects of Ecstasy use

The importance of these findings lie in their enormous variation. The pattern of Ecstasy use in mid1990s Glasgow appears to deviate from all other drugs. The subculture which has grown up around Ecstasy and its brand names is not found in other drugs. Although 'traditional' drugs such as cannabis, heroin or LSD come in many forms and occasionally have brand names, differences between these are quantitative. In the case of Ecstasy, differences between brands are often said to be qualitative. In other words, 'skunk' is just strong herbal cannabis, 'Iranian brown' is just smokable heroin (base) from Iran and 'green microdot' simply an allegedly potent form of LSD dyed green. Although the strength of these drug forms and brands may vary, the drug which they allegedly contain and its effects do not. This is not the case with Ecstasy. Users of Ecstasy report different contents and effects from both the same and different brands. This is illustrated by the 38 respondents who were able to give alleged contents for snowballs, giving 26 different answers. It seems that respondents, when buying Ecstasy, were buying into a concept rather than a single pharmacology. Indeed some respondents said that they simply bought a substance called Ecstasy, contents Ecstasy. When asked why she did not want to know what drugs were in Ecstasy tablets, one respondent replied that, as long as it makes her feel good why care about what it contains. To such users, Ecstasy was more important as part of a night out in the dance drug scene than as a drug experience for its own sake. There is an interesting parallel here between users' beliefs about the dance drug Ecstasy and dance drug music; both are mixed. Perhaps, Ecstasy can be seen as representative of a wider youth culture of conspicuous consumption., rather than simply being another drug used by drug users. From the point of view of the user, the importance of Ecstasy lies in its place as part of a wider lifestyle, not merely as a drug, important only for its pharmacological effects. When buying Ecstasy, the user is buying a feature of a lifestyle not a substance.

 

Implications of this new form of drug use

These findings raise several important policy implications in dealing with the dance drug phenomenon.

The greatest public health concerns lie in the belief that some Ecstasy tablets contain more than one drug. Whether many forms of Ecstasy do contain a cocktail of drugs or not is perhaps less important than the fact that many users believe that they do. Two alarming new trends in future drug use may result from this belief. First, Ecstasy users may become more likely to mix drugs rather than stick to a single substance during a drug-using session. If users believe that they have taken Ecstasy which is a mixture of heroin, MDMA and ketamine, then they may be more likely to use a combination of these individual substances in future. Mixing drugs, of course, increases the risk of harm. Second, users may start taking other drugs that they have never ( in fact) taken before if they believe they have already done so in an Ecstasy. Indeed, as this research was conducted, the author has contacted a group of the respondents who have started using opiates recreationally. They now believe that as there was heroin in the Ecstasy (according to the media) and it did them no harm, then they might as well just use heroin by itself now.

It is difficult to see how these potentially dangerous trends could be arrested. There is certainly a need for information to be given to dance drug users about the risks of mixing different substances. There is also a need for information to be given about what different Ecstasy brands actually contain. Perhaps, more importantly, this would also inform users what drugs are not usually found in Ecstasy. Such information would require continual up-dating to cope with the ever-changing varieties of Ecstasy. This could, in part, be achieved by the release of more forensic testing results, from police seizures and drug research. However, even if these results show that all Ecstasy is MDMA, MDEA, MDA or amphetamine, the next brand name to hit the dance floor will doubtless be marketed as something 'better'. In any case publication of test results may only serve to lull the user into a false sense of security. Fakers may even try to emulate brands previously tested as 'good'. On-site testing in clubs may be the most direct way to allay Ecstasy users' doubts about the drug's contents. Such a move may, however, be seen as condoning drug use. Any such short-term political concerns will need to be weighed against the long-term health effects of uncontrolled dangerous drug use by a large number of young people. On-site testing also has practical limi tations, by being able to identify only the crucle pres ence or absence of a narrow range of drugs, such as MDMA. In the end the only thing one can be sure about the contents of an illegally manufactured synthetic drug is that these will vary.

 

CONCLUSION

It is clear from the data presented here that Ecstasy consumption differs from that of other drugs. Unlike other drugs, Ecstasy is seen by its users as very variable in terms of both content and effects. Ecstasy also comes in a great many forms, marketed under different brand names with different reputations. Ecstasy is not a designer drug in the legal sense, as defined by the DEA to proscribe it:

. . . wherein the defined psychoactive properties of a scheduled drug have been retained, but the molecular structure has been altered in order to avoid prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act. Smith and Seymour (1985)

Ecstasy does resemble an early definition of a designer drug, as an 'entire packaging and marketing concept', rather than simply creative chemistry ( Baum, 1985 ). This was what Gary L. Henderson who coined the phrase designer drug intended. Commenting on the fentanyl analogues, Henderson felt that a true designer drug is designed for effects, legality, undetectability, potency and appearance. Much of this is true of Ecstasy in Glasgow in the 1990s. As this designer definition has become obsolete, it is felt here that the term 'concept drug' could be applied to Ecstasy, the concept drug of Ecstasy being a product rather than single pharmacology. Ecstasy can be seer as label rather than simply a nickname for MDMA. 1 is possible that such concept drugs may become the norm in future. Indeed, five respondents in this studs claimed to have used a substance called 'zonks' -; 'designer downer'. Zonks were allegedly made in the Netherlands by the same people who manufactures Ecstasy, to be used after Ecstasy use to induce sleep, a an alternative to pharmaceutical hypnotics such a temazepam. Whether these tablets were illicitly manufactured or not is not as important as the belief among users that they were. Users' beliefs about the effects and contents of zonks varied in the same fashion as their beliefs about Ecstasy.

The evidence presented in this article indicates that dance drug users are 'buying' the drug (Ecstasy) label, rather than simply pharmacology. This creates new challenges for health education and drug policies. Health messages need to be targeted at the dance drug lifestyle rather than at the effects of a single pharmacology as has been the case with traditional patterns of drug use. At present the effect of Ecstasy use ( i.e. not merely MDMA) is as unknown to the health educator as to the drug user. Clearly the risks associated with the dance drug scene as a whole can be more easily managed.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article comprises part of the author's PhD thesis.

The author would like to thank Dr Neil McKegany as supervisor of this thesis and Dr Jason Ditton who was supervisor at the time of data collection. Finally, thanks are also due to Sally Haw, Phil Dalgarno, Furzana Khan and Emma Short for their assistance during fieldwork.

Alasdair J . M. Forsyth, Centre for Research on Drug Misuse, Lilybank House, University of Glasgow G 12 8RT, UK.

 

REFERENCES

Baum RM (1985) . New variety of street drugs poses growing problem. Chemical and Engineering News 9: 7-16.

Beck JE (1990). The MDMA controversy: contexts of use and social control. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Public Health. University of California, Eterkeley.

Clinko R P, Roehrich H, Sweeny D R, Al-RaziJ (1987). Ecstasy: A review of MDMA and MDA. International Journal o Psychiatry in Medicine 16: 359-72.

Ditton J (1995) . A Socio-psychiatic Investigation on the Health and Other Consequences of MDMA ( 'Ecstasy') Use in a Chain Referred Purposive Sample of Glaswegian users. Report to Scottish Office, Chief Scientists Office.

The Economist (1993). Ecstasy: Marketupdate.13 November, 38.Eœmity (1995). E is for Ecstasy 26: 57-8; 28: 59-60.

Eisner B ( 1 989) . Ecstasy: TheMDMA Story. Berkeley, CA Ronin.

Forsyth AJM, Shewan D, Gemmell M, Davies JB (1991). The Feasibilityof carrying out research onthe impact of Prisons on Drug Use andHIV in the Community. Report to Scottish Office, Chief Scientists Office.

Gay Times (1994). Ecstasy: The present.20-1 September.

Gilman M (1994) . Football and drugs: two cultures clash. International Journal of Drug Policy 5: 40-8.

Grinspoon L, Hedblom P (1975). The Speed Culture: Amphetamine Use and Abuse in America. London: Harvard University Press.

Hammersley RH, Forsyth AJM, Morrison VL, Davies JB (1989) . Opioid use and crime. British Journal of Addiction 84: 1029S3.

Howes S (1990) . Club Class. New Statesman and Society 16 November, pp.18-19.

Lavelle TL, Hammersley R H, Forsyth AJM, Bain D(1991). The use of buprenorphine and temazepambydrug injectors. Journal of Addictive Diseases 10: 5-14.

Lifeline (1993). Ecstasy andEve. Manchester: Lifeline.

Mixmag (1994). What's in your E? 2: 43,58.

Morrison VL, Plant MA (1990). Licit and illicit drug initiations and alcohol related problems amongst illicit drug users in Edinburgh. Drug and Akohol Dependence 27: 19-27.

Neville RG, Mckellican JF, Foster J (1988). Heroin users in general practice: ascertainment and features. British Medical Journa1296: 755-8.

Newcombe R (1991). Raving and Dance Drugs. Liverpool: Rave Research Bureau.

Parker H, Measham F (1994) . Pick 'n' mix: changing patterns of illicit drug use amongst 1990s adolescents. Drugs: Education and Policy 1: 5-13.

Rahman MZ, Ditton J, Forsyth AJM (1989) . Variations in needle sharing practices among intravenous drug users in Possil (Glasgow) . British Journsl of Aldiction 84: 923-7.

Redhead S (1991). Rave off: youth subcultures and the law. Social Studies Review 1 (3): 92-94.

Rhodes TJ, Bloor MJ, Donoghue MC et al. (1993). HIV prevalence and HIV risk behaviour among injecting drug users in London and Glasgow. AIDS Care 5: 413-26.

Riedlinger JE (1985). The scheduling of MDMA: a pharmacist's perspective. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs l 7(3): 167-71.

Rietveld HC (1993) . Living the Dream: Analysis of the Rave Phenomenon in termsof Ideology, Consumerismanl Subculture. Unit for Law and Popular Culture, Manchester Polytechnic.

SawyerM (1992). Ecstasy. Select July, pp.56-61.

Shapiro H (1992) . Ecstasy - the drug and its effects. In Ashton M (Ed.), The Ecstasy Papers. London: Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency.

Shulgin AT, Shulgin A (1991) . 'PIHKAL': A Chemical Love Story. Berkeley, CA: Transform Press.

Smith DE, Seymour RB (1985) . Clarification of designer drugs. United States Journal ofDrug and AkoholAbuse November.

Stevens J (1987) . Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream. London: Paladin.

Wolfson PE (1986) . Meetings at the edge with ADAM: a man for all seasons. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 18: 329-33.

 

 

*The Centre for Research on Drug Misuse is funded by the Chief Scientists Office, of the Scottish Home and Health Department. The views reported in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Home and Health Department.