In reply to muppetfilter:
The google search brings up Nutt's review for the ACMD (or some crappy journalism reporting it, with some flagrant misrepresentation thrown in).
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/acmd1/mdma...
This is a review of the available evidence - it's the nearest thing possible to the bottom line on "what the science says", where the quality of the evidence is considered in its weighting in the conclusions rather than whether the evidence supports s political viewpoint (in contrast to what you'll see after it's been mangled by a scientifically illiterate journalist). I don't know if the review is the epitome of thorough, objective scientific reasoning, but thinking about it reasonably, it's from a trustworthy source.
Here's the bit about long term effects:
8. MDMA and mental health effects
8.1 MDMA-associated depressive symptoms appear to typically follow
weekend use and have been termed the ‘mid-week crash’ (Parrott and
Lasky, 1998). These feelings are generally mild and quickly resolve,
although some users have been reported to take selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants to mitigate the effects (Farre
et al., 2007).
8.2 A concern has been raised that extensive, chronic MDMA use can lead to
clinical depression, perhaps through changes in brain serotonin function
discussed in Section 6. The evidence is currently equivocal – most
studies do not find significantly increased levels of clinical depression
in current or ex-MDMA users; however, when combined, the available
evidence suggests that there is a small but significant exposure effect
(Rogers et al., 2009). One study has found that scores on depression
rating scales in MDMA users were somewhat elevated compared with
non-users and this was most marked in those with a specific genotype
of the serotonin reuptake site (Roiser et al., 2005). Although, even in the
most affected group, these ratings did not fall within the range considered
symptomatic of clinical depression.
8.3 Some people with clinical depression find that MDMA can acutely lift
their mood, albeit only transiently (B. Sessa, pers. comm.). Although it is
unlikely that much MDMA use is for such self-medication, the scheduling
status of MDMA has discouraged systematic clinical research work in this
area. Recently there have been two clinical trials showing that MDMA can
accentuate the benefits of psychotherapy in the treatment of chronic posttraumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) (Bouso et al., 2008, Mithoefer et al.,
2008).
I don't have an axe to grind on the issue, if MDMA is harmful it should be treated as such and if its completely benign then likewise, let's have it for breakfast. The only way we'll know is through science. I do have an axe to grind about science, how it is interpreted, communicated to the public and its unsatisfactory level of influence on policy.
When discussing matters of science, there is a right and a wrong, and in this case the nearest thing to 'right' is a review of the available evidence. OK, David Nutt was bad at politics (horse-riding yada yada), but this is a
review, commissioned by the Home Office and signed off by Board of the ACMD, not a study that he conducted personally to concoct evidence to support his viewpoint (which is that MDMA isn't as harmful as policy makers believe, and that there may be therapeutic uses whose development is precluded by bad policy).
You could go for a conspiracy argument that he is in charge of some massive MDMA factory and wants to flog it all to the nation's children, and has cherry-picked and misinterpreted the evidence, but then you'd be a desperate crack-pot, trying in the face of the scientific evidence to justify your own view which is based on what you feel, not what is out there in the world.
Or you could simply agree that the scientific evidence, while flawed for the reasons I outline upthread, suggests that MDMA isn't significantly harmful, because that's what the evidence, as reviewed by a panel of scientific experts employed to give impartial scientific advice to the government, suggests.
Personally I think that life would be much, much better if people would look at the world as it really exists, with an open mind about what they'll see if they open their eyes. There are some questions that science can't answer, but for those where science is perfectly suited, why is it so hard just to look at the evidence and form views and policies from there?