I think you misunderstand the point of MDMA in therapy, it doesn't need to distinguish between "bad" or "good" memories, you do that. The substance simply serves to ensure that you can begin to introspect on those experiences that you might otherwise recoil from, or that might otherwise cause you to sink deeper. Think of it as a person or maybe a place of total benevolence and safety in all respects, within which nothing can hurt you and everything nurtures you. From that place you can begin to heal yourself.

Let me re-iterate that, you do the healing. The substance just provides the ideal setting.

Additionally, they're not used in the same way recreationally at all. There's no therapy sessions delving deep into old suppressed memories; it's not a comparable environment at all.

Why do you think talking with friends can not provide a similar environment?

It could, of course, but it's highly unlikely. The reality is that most common MDMA taking environments there will be very little psychoanalysis going on.

Though, I was commenting more on the implication that taking MDMA will be an experience around memories and exploring them - "I don't know a drug smart enough to recognize bad memories from good ones." MDMA will not suddenly bring up memories (good or bad) to haunt you. It will in all likelyhood invoke strong feelings of empathy and love for the people around you :)

Imagine something you're deeply ashamed of, it's quite irrelevant whether that shame is justified or not -- we're discussing psychosis here. So we're not discussing "wow I really feel bad I didn't fix that bug I promised to", we're talking a context analagous to "my <insert relative here> raped me and I believe I'm to blame for the disolution of the only family I knew".

Now imagine discussing that with your hypothetical friends or peer group. Hypothetical? Why is that? It's hypothetical because a frequent consequence of damaging experiences is the inability to form meaningful connections with others that engender that kind of trust or dynamic. Even if you were, would you really want people you're presumably planning to know for the rest of your life to have that as your reference point? And what happens when your peer groups or friends are a entwined or part of the problem? Who do you turn to then?

Now humour me just a little more and substitute the word "ashamed" in the first sentence for every extant and applicable negative adjective. That is why you need a setting that insulates you in order to enable you to begin to address and introspect in a therapeutic session, without "prop" like MDMA that sort of setting takes time, qualifications and skill to build - and in some case is impossible to build.

Edit: re-reading your comment I'm fairly sure I misunderstood your question, regardless I leave my response

> Imagine something you're deeply ashamed of, it's quite irrelevant whether that shame is justified or not -- we're discussing psychosis here.

And we are discussing MDMA here so that very feeling is numbed, it can't hurt you in that very moment, you feel save by any means. (Provided you generally feel comfortable among the people you are with).

Now for the sake of the argument let's assume the person here does have real friends, friends they do care for them and aren't just random acquaintances. Let's also not discuss some extreme cases where this might not be enough. But that rape case you've mentioned might still work.

I find it kind of sad that you disregard the possibility that talking with friends and getting their support, helping you to continue your life, something humanity has done for millennia. Instead you say only a professional can magically 'fix' it. I think you are making it a bit too easy here to disregard all personal responsibility for your peers, saying that only an expert can provide help.

> Even if you were, would you really want people you're presumably planning to know for the rest of your life to have that as your reference point?

I think that if you know them well enough and share more experiences with them then just that, it will not be their 'reference point' but instead an important fact to know you better and support you when necessary.

Of course there are situations where this is not applicable, but that goes for everything. There are no magic bullets.

Actually I'm not. And before I continue, let me add: this has little to do with advocacy, and even less to do with anyone trying to foist their perceptions of the recreational or therapeutic value of anything upon you.

I was only explaining what the therapeutic value of the substance is perceived to be, this isn't according to me -- though I obviously share that opinion and paraphrased. That's according to the qualified professionals that advocate its use. They have fairly robust reasons for this that result from experience using it in controlled settings for that purpose.

It's interesting that you mention alcohol & marijuana, because it's sadly that sort of confusion and unwarranted comparison that got us here, it's actually the point of the article: one drug (ironically a legal perscription medication) was mistakenly given to test subjects, bad things happened. Consequently research on a totally different drug was curtailed. Retrospect deepens the irony as the first drug, the bad yet legally perscribed one, went on to wreak havoc in the streets through addiction and associated crime.

Note that I completely ageee on pursuing research, and find the article interesting in that matter. My comment was more a reaction towards people advocating the use of psychotrops despite the fact that research is still heavily in progress.