Having taken Molly, I'd say no, it doesn't make you any more suggestible or willing to tell the truth than marijuana or excessive alcohol do.

Maybe the most "suggestive" aspect of any of these drugs is the reduction of inhibitions and worry. But it's all relative to a person's sense of self and force of will -- they don't change you into another person, just remove some of the emotional blocks which prevent you from being, doing, or saying what you want to.

>maybe 250mg + 125mg 1hr later

This transforms you into an Anime character. Then your jaw spontaneously shatters and your eyes start hemorrhaging rainbows.

Jokes aside, I've wondered about this as well. Especially if you treated the interrogatee in a mellow manner while he or she was captive, then slipped in some doses without them knowing, and then set the music right, or had them shacked up in some Swiss chalet with a wine cellar and a breath taking view. People spilling their guts on MDMA is a function the environment with the drug is a catalyst. And it's not like you're completely out of your mind; you are well aware of your surroundings and you would almost certainly know you've been detained, which would taint the whole experience.

It might make you hug the interrogator but not much more.

I disagree, a lot of people spill their entire life story when they take it.

The question is if they'd spill their story even if they have a strong motivation/decision to not spill the story, as described in the article. For example, many people tend to talk about themselves while drunk; but they don't magically start talking about things they really, really want to hide, they'd instead become aggressive or silent.

>The question is if they'd spill their story even if they have a strong motivation/decision to not spill the story, as described in the article.

This is merely anecdotal evidence, but having ingested MDMA and experienced these effects, I would say no. There is still very much a feeling that certain things are off-limits. I couldn't imagine that someone would, for example, confess to a murder whilst being interrogated under the influence of MDMA (unless they felt extreme guilt, perhaps).

However, I could easily see myself admitting that I'm not actually a heart surgeon.

That same thing happens with alcohol for a lot of people.

Only when you are young.

Based on what I've read about other side effects, any positive gains made in the person possibly telling the truth would be negated by the drug's side effects (profuse sweating, elevated heart rate, etc.) causing normal 'lie detector' monitoring tools being rendered ineffective.

On one side, I thought we were discussing using a chemical to enforce truthfulness instead of a device.

On the other side, I'd never thought of using an intoxicant to invalidate lie detecting devices.

If I were in the...truthing...business, I guess I'd want to back up any use of a chemical with some secondary form of validation.

But all chemical truthing methods would invalidate your mechanical truthing methods...

Some kinds of data can be independently verified after torture, or you can use different techniques, nominally by different organizations (good cop, bad cop) to authenticate information.

This is why organizations like MAPS are important. There could be a lot to learn about chemicals and for the government to say no to research is plain ridiculous IMO. I am no fan of the chemicals that are found on the streets because there is no real knowledge of what goes into such substances. Reading the book on Albert Hoffman's life and research was very enlightening on this kind of situation on scientific research.