The mid-1990s witnessed a notable resurgence of MDMA, often known as ecstasy or molly, among young people, particularly within the burgeoning nightclub and rave scenes. This was not a spontaneous phenomenon but rather a multifaceted development, shaped by shifts in drug popularity, evolving cultural landscapes, and the persistent, if sometimes shifting, dynamics of the War on Drugs.
To fully grasp this resurgence, one must consider the broader context of drug use in the preceding years. The late 1980s and early 1990s had seen the widespread impact of crack cocaine, a substance whose dangers became increasingly apparent over time, leading to a decline in its use. As one drug problem waned, others emerged to fill the void, with methamphetamine and easily acquired prescription painkillers like Oxycontin becoming increasingly prevalent. This period also saw drug use reaching “epidemic proportions” among Black youths in inner cities, fostering the growth of gangs and an increase in murder rates as these groups vied for geographical dominance. Interestingly, the influence extended beyond these communities, as gangsta rap, which often emulated the “ostentatious ‘flossing’ and menacing attitude of their gangster peers,” became a “style icon” for a significant segment of white, middle-class youths. This meant that hip-hop verses celebrating drug dealing became “locker room chants and drunken frat boy choruses,” effectively making the “crack dealer, channeled through the gangsta rapper, a suburban icon”.
Against this backdrop of evolving illicit drug markets, MDMA, having been permanently placed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in the early 1980s following an initial period of popularity, “resurfaced”. The drug’s association with a youthful, countercultural bent in the 1960s and 70s had, by the 1990s, morphed into its adoption within specific entertainment subcultures. The period itself was characterized by a shifting societal mood: the “end of history” ideology, suggesting liberal democracy had reached its final form, might have felt “complacent or restrictive to a burgeoning countercultural figure,” potentially fueling a desire for alternative experiences. The “culture wars” were also ongoing, permeating public opinion and affecting various aspects of American life.
The underlying economic and social currents of the mid-1990s also played a role. The stock market was experiencing a significant boom, stimulating American interest, and the financial system continued to grow, with large sums of money being doled out for tasks of “no obvious social utility”. This era also saw the continued dominance of “neoliberalism,” emphasizing free markets, which had taken hold since the 1970s. William Appleman Williams’s thesis, suggesting that “laissez-faire” appeals often served as strategies for elites to gain control over resources, remained relevant. The prevailing sentiment was one of “total confidence in ‘the market system’ and ‘private enterprise’,” even as it led to a situation where “the American people were being consigned to the mercy of the ‘free market'” [Reich]. This economic shift, coupled with the “moralization” of certain issues and the rise of “moral entrepreneurs”, created a complex environment for drug policy.
The government’s response to the resurgence of synthetic drugs like MDMA in the 1990s reflected this climate. Federal drug legislation in this period increasingly focused on synthetic compounds. The “Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003,” though slightly after the mid-1990s, amended the CSA to specifically target “producers of raves where synthetic drugs such as MDMA were often used”. This act shifted emphasis from punishing those who simply establish drug-involved places to those who “knowingly maintain such places,” and also established civil penalties for doing so. Temporary scheduling of synthetic drugs also became a “key tool” in combating the emergence of new substances.
Moreover, the discourse surrounding drug use in the 1990s was heavily influenced by the “super-predator” theory, popularized by academics like James A. Fox and John J. DiIulio Jr. in the mid-1990s. This theory posited a coming wave of youth violence from a “new generation of young men, a large percentage of whom are black,” who were described as “especially prone to cruel, violent acts and incapable of honest work”. This theory, though “soundly debunked” as violent crime actually plummeted in subsequent years, significantly contributed to a national movement that made it easier to try juvenile offenders as adults, with some states removing consideration of youth altogether. This climate of moral panic and increased punitive measures against certain segments of the population coexisted with the spread of drugs like MDMA among other youth groups.
MDMA, in its chemical nature, is a “mind-altering” substance, fitting within a broader category of psychedelics that “claim to deal with aspects of reality which our shared delusion filters out”. Historically, the scientific discussion of such substances had faced “neo-Inquisitorial fury,” with enacted laws making it a crime to replicate research into their effects. This suppression of scientific inquiry had the “unfortunate result of turning the outlaw drug culture back toward fifth circuit hedonics and pre-scientific tunnel-realities (the occult revival, solipsism, Pop Orientalism)”. While the counterculture of the 1960s had sought “consciousness-expanding experience” with LSD, promoting ideas of “space migration, increased intelligence, and life extension”, by the 1990s, the drug culture of that era had aged, with “pot smoking parents” expressing concerns about adolescent drug use and even seeking advice from publications like *High Times*. The focus had shifted, in part, to concerns about “amotivational syndrome” linked to heavy marijuana use in adolescents, leading to apathy and a retreat from public life.
In essence, the resurgence of MDMA in the mid-1990s was a phenomenon embedded within a dynamic socio-cultural and political landscape. It reflected a continuation of evolving drug preferences among youth, the adaptability of illicit drug markets, and the state’s efforts to regulate drug use within a framework increasingly shaped by neoliberal ideologies and a fluctuating “War on Drugs” that targeted certain populations more than others. The narrative of MDMA’s return, therefore, is not merely about a drug, but about a complex interplay of personal choices, cultural shifts, economic forces, and governmental reactions in a pivotal decade.