Party Drug or Prescription?

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is much better known as MDMA, Molly, or

Ecstasy. The public believes that MDMA instantly addicts its users and that using it is like
taking ice cream scoops out of your brain in terms of the damage they perceive it does. But are
these statements scientifically accurate? Theres a growing group of doctors and others in the
psychological and brain sciences fields that disagree and they see MDMA as the next big thing in
mental health treatment. Despite this growing support, the United States federal government has
classified MDMA as a Schedule I drug, which means that the drug has no accepted medical usage
and has a high potential for abuse. Still though, research is being conducted that challenges these
claims and presents many new opportunities for MDMA to be a revolutionary treatment for many
diseases. To reference our class journal responses from week 6, moves are decisions a writer
makes to reach a specific goal. Identifying these can help the readers understand how the piece of
writing was put together, and in turn reveal the pieces exigence, which is the circumstance
that invites a response. (Carroll 48) The audience should be able to respond to the exigence and
help address the problem (Carroll 49). To analyze some moves authors make, I selected two
academic journal articles and one online health news article that all explore different aspects of
MDMA as a new treatment. Through its discipline-specific organizational move of following
an IMRAD structure, and by a simplification move that it shares with the other academic
article, Greer and Tolberts empirical article is proven as the strongest, most effective way to
present new research into MDMA.
The first academic article I analyzed was a psychology empirical journal article titled, A
Method Of Conducting Therapeutic Sessions with MDMA by principle researchers Greer and
Tolbert. In another academic article, Pentney takes a look at MDMA and MDA through the past
hundred years in An Exploration of the History and Controversies Surrounding MDMA and
MDA. Lastly, I chose a health news article from United Kingdom online news source, The

Independent. Gander, the author, discusses how MDMA researchers raised $22,000 in order to
test how MDMA can be used to treat mental illness.
To begin, Greer and Tolbert effectively follow the IMRAD subheading structure in their report,
which is a format for a journal article ordered by an introduction followed by the methods used,
results obtained, analysis of data, and concluded with a discussion section. This clear organization
allows for a logical flow of information, which not only projects an educated image but also is
more appealing for readers to read. An educated image provides authority for the paper, which is
crucial in a case where a controversial viewpoint is being discussed. The only way Greer and
Tolbert stray from this structure are the inclusion of an abstract and a reference section, which are
actually positive additions instead of distracting divergences. This conscious organizational
move is the most effective way of framing ideas of the three articles examined.
Another option for organization would be if the authors would have chosen to lump all of
the sections together into a report, which would have been daunting and discouraging for the
reader. The health news article reads in this manner, since it lacks any headings or clear, logical
flow. As a result, this article reads more anecdotally and does not seem as professional or
educated. Additionally, without these characteristics the article is not as strong in its logos,
which is an appeal to an audiences intellectual side (Carroll 52). Appealing to logos also
includes appealing to an audiences logic, since both are of the same root word. Therefore,
without a clear and logical flow to the article, Gander comes up short in comparison to Greer and
Tolbert in terms of presenting information in the most effective format.
Similarly, Pentney chooses not to follow the IMRAD structure and does not emphasize
any one subsection. Instead, she decides to casually flow from one topic to the next. This decision
is less effective at presenting information clearly than Greer and Tolberts move to use
IMRAD but more effective than the lack of any subheadings or formal structure of Ganders
article. Since Pentney is examining MDMA and MDA (a similar yet distinctly different
compound) in more of an exploratory sense and not conducting an experiment, this leads her

away from an IMRAD structure. Without an experiment being conducted, there are no
methods, results, or an analysis to include. Not to be discounted though, her subheadings do have
somewhat of a flow to them. For example, recreational MDMA use is followed by toxicities of
MDMA, which is a topic hotly debated in the field and almost the first concern brought up when
talking about recreational MDMA use. The focus is then brought back to recreational use by the
subheading of illicit ecstasy and then refocused on the even more specific subheading of the
neurotoxicity of MDMA. While it is not entirely unsuccessful, Pentneys organization is lacking
in comparison to Greer and Tolberts. Without a logical flow, this piece comes across as less
educational than the other academic article. This small bit of structure is still more effective than
the complete lack of organizational subheadings in the health article, as previously stated.
To look deeper into the disciplinary differences to the previously mentioned
organizational moves, Greer and Tolbert go into great detail about their methods. This move
is common in psychology articles since a main pillar of research in this field is for every aspect to
be public. As an example, they utilize almost an entire page to describe the process of
Screening, preparation, and programming for the session (Greer and Tolbert 372). This section
describes the methods involved in choosing the correct participants, since there was a risk of
getting participants with impure intentions. For instance, they discuss how they never
recommended a person who believed MDMA could cure or treat them, for Greer and Tolbert
believed that a person cured themselves with the assistant of MDMA and their relationship to the
researcher (Greer and Tolbert 372). Letting the reader know of every detail of the development
and execution of this new psychotherapy method allows others to regenerate the circumstances
and procedures surrounding the therapy session to prove its validity, which is essential for an
article to be respected by those in the academic field. This is especially important for this specific
article since the intended audience is one of the authors academic peers in psychology and
because understanding audience is a key part to understanding the context of a rhetorical moment.
(Carroll)

Continuing on the successes of Greer and Tolberts article, they make a move of
adding a small but important section on alternative procedures. Since they are dealing with a
controversial treatment with MDMA, Greer and Tolbert offer some alternative options that they
believe have similar effects to the treatment method they are studying. They concede that some
other treatment options may work (to varying degrees of success) in place of the MDMA and are
generally safer, before then going on to state that all concerned parties in their experimental
therapy session agreed that the possible benefits of MDMA outweighed the risks. (Greer &
Tolbert) This move is very effective. The addition of this section shows their audience of
(probably) skeptical peers that they dont have tunnel vision about this new possible treatment. In
comparison, the other academic article and the online health news article do not offer other
pathways of treatment. Leaving other alternatives out could be seen as biased by and may lose the
audiences trust.
Moves are usually unique to each author or discipline, but I found that the two
academic articles make a similar, very strong move. That is, the simplification of terms that may
be unfamiliar or confusing for the reader. This can be seen in multiple instances in Pentneys
paragraph, Illicit Ecstasy. She lists many drugs by their chemical names that are misrepresented
as ecstasy, followed by the street names of those drugs in parentheses and quotation marks such
as ketamine (Special K) (Pentney 218). The reader may be unfamiliar with ketamine, but
may be more familiar with its street name, special K. Greer and Tolbert also did this by
explaining multiple myeloma as a metastatic, cancerous condition of the bone marrow (Greer
and Tolbert 376). Boyd says, choosing how to express your meaning is every bit as important as
the message itself (Boyd 87) so, explaining or simplifying things to the audience makes the
article more reader-friendly. This move allows the article to reach a wider audience and to inform
more people on the subject. Ultimately, this is an effective move and makes the academic
journals superior at getting information across to their audience.

This is especially in comparison to the health article where Gander fails to define
possibly confusing terms. An example of this would be where she states that an active placebo
is used. By not explaining the effects of an active placebo or how it relates to the smaller 30mg
dose of MDMA (Gander), she leaves the reader confused. Her decision to not explain further
and be crystal clear about all aspects of the information she gathered detracts from the ethos of
her article. As an example, Carroll describes a situation where overly technical language can take
away from ethos because sounding too intellectual can come across as pompous or stuffy
(Carroll 54). Some readers may be put off by terms they are unfamiliar with that arent defined,
and may take it as Gander being an academic elitist. If these people choose not to read further
into the article because they dont understand some terms, Gander has narrowed her audience as a
result of her move to not define these terms. In turn, this contributes to her article being weaker
than the two academic articles in terms of presenting new information on MDMA.
In conclusion, non-academic and academic sources have many differences such as
organization and detail, which all relate back to their audience and disciplinary focus. The authors
of these articles all seem to have the same underlying purpose, though they go about
accomplishing their goals in different ways. These ways are conscious decisions, or moves,
that ultimately aid or take away from their goal at getting new information out to the widest
possible audience. At the very least, it can be argued that each of the authors want their readers to
become more informed on the possibility of MDMA becoming a medical treatment. But by
taking a closer look, the reader can see that Greer and Tolbert execute this plan most effectively.
Pentney also does a fine job, but the lack of logical heading flow and decision to not include
alternative treatments hurts her effort. Lastly, Gander makes a decent effort but ultimately falls
flat in comparison to the academic articles.

Works Cited

Carroll, Laura Bolin. Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis. Vol. 1. Print.

Boyd, Janet. Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking). Vol. 1. Print.

Gander, Kashmira. "MDMA Researchers Testing How Drug Can Be Used to Treat Mental Illness
Raise $22,000." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 23 Dec. 2015. Web. 11
May 2016.

Greer, George R., and Requa Tolbert. "A Method of Conducting Therapeutic Sessions with
MDMA." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 30.4 (1998): 371-79. Web.

Pentney, Alana R. "An Exploration of the History and Controversies Surrounding MDMA and
MDA." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 33.3 (2001): 213-21. Web.