• Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Misc What drugs can I take that arent bad karma ie not discovered by testing on animals?

Fuck, there are some narrow minded fuckers on bluelight.

Re: Kratom, it might be worth investigating the environmental effects of that industry and its growing demand.
Many of the increasingly popular ethnobotanicals have dubious origins, in regard to deforestation, destruction of habitats of vulnerable flora and fauna (often in developing countries).

Being aware of the source of such drugs (and their affect on the natural world now) is much more important than animal suffering in the past - that's my take on it anyway.

I mean...look at what the cocaine black market/drug war has done to certain South and Central American countries.

As has been noted - it's a cruel world. Try not to let it overwhelm you - trying to do the righteous thing is admirable, but ultimately, what's done is done; projecting past wrongs on a drug (as opposed to - say - a company that engaged in that animal testing research, and is now selling the product) seems a bit of a stretch to me. I think it is a pretty indirect relationship, ethically to avoid a drug for testing done using that drug 100+ years ago.

I mean, direct your energies in whatever direction you feel is right (that's commendable, in my opinion) - but keep stock of what you can influence (even if it is extremely small).

If you don't agree with the OP's ethical perspectives (we've all got 'em - they just vary) - how about making an intelligent contribution about it, rather than just flaming?
 
Last edited:
While not exactly on topic, I tend to question a) the legitimacy of many animal experiments in the sense that there are just too many differences and while many pharms that have passed animal tests later showed bad, possibly lethal or at least disabling side effects in humans, on the other side -at least- as many pharms were thrown out cause of animals' reactions that could well have good potential in humans.

Let's think of that good old Rat Park thing. Especially when coming to psychopharms, e.g. screening for antidepressant chemicals on animals is just a hit and miss imo.

And b) in the same sense of rat park - there is already so much money in that whole system. Why not do a little bit more for these poor animals in the lab and give them a bit more space, anesthetize them before killing etc.. In my eyes there is much for little expense that one could do to improve the situation and to achieve a point where these tests that can't be done on cloned cells etc. can be done in a way where one does not have to turn ethics off..
 
And b) in the same sense of rat park - there is already so much money in that whole system. Why not do a little bit more for these poor animals in the lab and give them a bit more space, anesthetize them before killing etc.. In my eyes there is much for little expense that one could do to improve the situation and to achieve a point where these tests that can't be done on cloned cells etc. can be done in a way where one does not have to turn ethics off..

Often lab animals will be anaesthetized before being killed. Some labs don't as they believe a quick and painless "cervical dislocation" (snapping their necks) is more humane to them. You have to realize that mice in particular dislike being touched or being around humans at all, grabbing them and injecting them with a ketamine/xylazine combo stresses them out a lot. Then they also have to experience the effects of those drugs kicking in, they might like it, but they probably don't. Whether or not you anaesthetise also depends on the nature of the experiment, you can't give mice ketamine if you are taking out their brains afterwards to evaluate them. Ketamine will cause changes in brain chemistry and affect the outcome of your experiment...

Prior to doing an experiment using animals you'll have to fill out an application form that is then reviewed by an ethical committee. Usually these people are non-scientists and the scientist will have to explain why they NEED to use animals. There's regulations in place that make sure the animals are checked on daily, their cages are cleaned, they are housed socially (in case of social animals at least) and that there is so called "enrichment" such as toilet rolls, running wheels and other things for them to play with.

For most experiments out there lab mice tend to be quite content for the duration of their lives and active efforts are made to give them a quick and painless death.
 
Yes besides the flames it is interesting to hear other people's viewpoints.

I live in pretty much totla isolation these days in terms of being able to discuss such matter so sadly forums are my only jumping off point for such matter currrently.

I dont have the inclination to find likeminded people either cos I have other priorities which are more important right now.

Anyway I think the ethics are very intersting- captain kratom that stance you take is a slippery slope is it not? Ie you can ta\ke it too far and say do ANYTHING. You said that you can even eat meat because your eating it wont affect the industry. That would also be true about the abonimable fur trade where the sick and twisted monsters skin the animals alive and chuck them onto a pile while they are still moving with their other unfortunate comrades.

I agree that for things that happened in the past its probably better not to get caught up in it and if said drugs wil help me now then it would be neutral.

Playing devils advocate you could also just say that as one pathetic human nothing matters so just do anyhting. Or you could also say that all the suffering humasn cause are just a 'natural expression' so do whatever. But likewise compassion and love etc are also a natural expression so that would be jsut as valid :). Just opening those things up for discussion for those who are interested.
 
I do my best to live as ethically as possible, but try to keep it in perspective I suppose.
I mean, animal suffering, or other awful things that happened before I was born can't be changed.

Like, I own several leather jackets. They are all second hand, so I don't feel bad about wearing a dead animal's hide. Me continuing the life of the garment means (to me - and I give Peter Singer credit for this perspective) that the animal didnt die for such short terms ends as the life of a jacket with a single wearer.
Does that make sense?
It's a bit like how Ive not eaten meat for 15 odd years but I'd hate to see meat get thrown in the bin; the suffering and lives of farmed animals may be unnecessarily barbaric, but it somehow seems worse to me of that was all for nothing (in the grand scheme of things).

I suppose I have similar ideas about animal testing. I avoid it when I can, but it's pretty difficult to make an ethical call on every single part of life, in the world we find ourselves in. Which isn't to say it isn't worth making an effort to be conscious of - i have a great deal of respect for it - but modern western consumer society is built on suffering; be it exploitation of our fellow men and women or the natural world, in so many ways.
There is a healthy balance to be struck between living a good life and being an ethical being, it's all up to you as to how you find it IMO.
 
Top