Will this still be the case in 20 years?
Two out of the three articles I viewed displayed the pros of using MDMA for psychotherapy by describing the positive effects for the use of MDMA as a medical and therapeutic drug. Obviously MDMA is a schedule I drug for a reason, the article MDMA - The Ecstacy exploits the negative long-term effects of the drug through research and studies. Countering these claims, McKie's article Ecstasy does not wreck the mind states that the data from these experiments shows that correlation is not causation. Mckie tells that the experiment "studied users who were taken from a culture dominated by all-night dancing...individuals (consistent with) sleep and fluid deprivation - factors that are themselves known to produce long-lasting cognitive effects." Through another experimental study, conducted by Professor John Halpern of Harvard Medical School, they carefully selected participants to single out and study the effects of MDMA alone; "When we did that, we found that there was no difference in their cognitive abilities."
This doesn't mean that MDMA should be legalized and dispersed out to any patient who has symptoms of anxiety or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), that would have to many flaws to the system.
It would be an easy system to fool
But, under the right measures and precautions MDMA could be used in psychotherapy to help calm the symptoms of anxiety and PTSD. Palmquist's article The Ecstasy and the Agony includes an e-mail interview with a pair of Norwegian scientists who published a paper covering MDMA and its assistance with anxiety disorders. The benefits of using MDMA with psychotherapy, is that MDMA can aid the recovery of a traumatic event in someone's life by enhancing the confidence, openness and feelings that they are safe and in control. These feelings aid with the process of exposure therapy (commonly used for PTSD).
All of these articles say they have evidence from studies and experiments. They say all of the data comes from Universities or experimental labs, which can be true, but the questions we have to ask are; were there any other factors that could affect these results? What guidelines did these studies have to follow, or how can we be sure that the results aren't from inaccurate data? Did any of these researchers have a bias, or a bias forced from a benefactor of the study? It could be any number of reasons, and we should keep these in mind as we investigate articles and information on any study conducted.
So what's the conclusion? Should we start prescribing MDMA as a pharmaceutical anti-anxiety prescription? Or should it stay up in the ranks with marijuana, cocaine and heroin? The answer lies within the studies of course, although it is up to use to determine whether or not the studies are accurate.
Extremely interesting research. I'm especially intrigued by your question, "Should we start prescribing MDMA as a pharmaceutical anti-anxiety prescription?" I believe further research is necessary to answer this question. If, for instance, we find that a certain chemical balance is the cause of PTSD, and not just a confounding variable, it would be potentially be an eligible solution. We would also need significant evidence to prove that MDMA is an effective agonist to combat this problem before prescribing hard drugs as a medical treatment.