If cocaine blocks reuptake of dopamine..

[Barrett66]

I find it interesting when stimulant users act like opioids are something terrible.
Sure they're addictive & you don't want a dependence on something if you have no constant access to it. That part is understandable, but opioids are less toxic & destructive on your body & brain than stimulants.

Not to mention cocaine is cardiotoxic.
And amphetamine is neurotoxic.

Yet it's the opioids (some of the least toxic drugs there is) that always get the bad rep in the drug world.

I've asked several meth dealers over the past several years if they fucked with heroin & they acted like I asked them if they enjoy killing people.
Like okay, you're literally using/selling a drug that's neurotoxic & turns people into hypersexual sleep deprived zombies, but heroin is a step too far? lol Yeah right. You can usually tell if some one's educated on pharmacology/drugs or not when they act like meth is okay but heroin is some how worse for you? lol

we can thank the Sackler family for this absurd "Opiate Crisis" bullshit. seems like every movie or TV series I see now has some sort of element pushing an agenda against opiates and it's fucking ridiculous. I take them responsibly for chronic back pain and only low dose hydrocodone but I never abuse them or anything else, it pisses me off when they make such a big deal about it but then you watch movies like euphoria and they're doing Coke and acid and all kinds of other shit like Molly and MDMA math you name it and that doesn't become a crisis as far as the government's concerned. They should be looking at the fentanyl as the biggest crisis in the US right now maybe even the world but not just standard opiates like Percocet or hydrocodone etc etc. It truly pisses me off lol

 

[GaumarolBostich]

Methylphenidate (Ritalin) is actually nearly twice as potent as Cocaine at DAT (ED-50) effective dose to inhibit 50% of dopamine transporters DAT which is required to experience euphoric effects

So you are suggesting that Ritalin is an excellent alternative to Cocaine without the cardiovascular threats? What about the serotonergic effects?

Could be a nice mix to 4-MMC then when taken cautiously.

 

[Hexenstahl]

we can thank the Sackler family for this absurd "Opiate Crisis" bullshit. seems like every movie or TV series I see now has some sort of element pushing an agenda against opiates and it's fucking ridiculous. I take them responsibly for chronic back pain and only low dose hydrocodone but I never abuse them or anything else, it pisses me off when they make such a big deal about it but then you watch movies like euphoria and they're doing Coke and acid and all kinds of other shit like Molly and MDMA math you name it and that doesn't become a crisis as far as the government's concerned. They should be looking at the fentanyl as the biggest crisis in the US right now maybe even the world but not just standard opiates like Percocet or hydrocodone etc etc. It truly pisses me off lol

I'm the last one to defend plutocrats, but honestly the Sackler family didn't do anything the other pharmaceutical companies weren't already doing. The Sacklers were just picked as the face of the so called opioid crisis because every good propaganda campaign needs a symbol people can project their feelings on, as the father of the PR-Industry, Edward Bernays, once correctly stated.
As far as the the opioid "crisis" is concerned: it doesn't exist. We have an (intentional) overdose crisis, but no opioid crisis. People should look to the 19th century when drug laws didn't exist at all and every drug was freely available and take a look at the state of society back then. No [insert drug] crisis to be seen. Sure, some people became addicted to heroin, cocaine, opium, etc. but society functioned because these people weren't criminalized. They could pursue careers, have families and just lead overall normal lives despite their addiction, which proves that drugs, no matter how addictive, are NOT the problem. Prohibition with all its effects however IS a problem. Now try to make the stupid sheeple understand that and we'd live in a much better world.
But it has always been easier for the stupid human species to look for an easy scapegoat than to critically reflect on ones opinions. People just like to be herded like the idiotic animals they are.

- Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur -

 

[GaumarolBostich]

I agree with many things you wrote @Hexenstahl but I like to throw in that drug supression is resulting from a fear to loose control which is part of human nature. So drug laws are invented from people who have no or little experience in psychedelic substances except Alcohol of course for people who have the same experience level. What unites them is the fear to loose control for themselves and their beloved. A fear that is not ungrounded in my understanding because there is a certain percentage that slip into addiction in many ways. I don't know what social status a opium user had in the unrestricted times but it is certainly aligned with functioning socially and societywise (work, family etc.).

My personal view is that our brain is built to hunger for rewards, if you focus on single methods to satisfy it (drugs, sex, gambling, sports) and use shortcuts you step on a slippery slope. If you are able to spread your rewards and manage to enjoy long lasting rewards and satisfaction then you do not loose control.

 

[Hexenstahl]

drug supression is resulting from a fear to loose control which is part of human nature. So drug laws are invented from people who have no or little experience in psychedelic substances except Alcohol of course for people who have the same experience level.

I would have to partially disagree. Yes, it does have a lot to do with control, but not in a neurotic kind of sense. There is calculated, unscrupulous intent behind this (because it is easier to control a society of persistently stressed & depressed people as it makes you more suggestible). I'm not talking about politicians, who are nothing but puppets, but rather about the architects of this system. Those people that you are talking about are simply the useful idiots, used to achieve that goal. If you go back to the late 19th early 20th century where the push towards drug regulation and the first anti-drug campaigns, which was until then unheard of, appeared, and see what sort of people financed all of that AND look into the lifestyle of those financiers, you'll realize that the inventors of this anti-drug ideology don't actually believe the crap they feed their underlings. In fact, those people actually used psychoactive drugs themselves and seemed to be quite passionate about doing drugs. They just don't want YOU to reap the benefits of drug use. An old article with the title "Yes, the british royals did use drugs" nonchalantly drops the information that, among others, the Rothschilds frequently ordered psychoactive drugs. They received cocaine deliveries whenever they were in Braemar (Scotland), according to the order books of A. R. Clark Pharmacy. I'm pretty sure that didn't stop after 1930. It is as they say: rules for thee, but not for me.

P.S.: I mentioned in a post last year that low dose DMT had surprisingly long-term antidepressant effects on me. That seems also to be the result of a phase 2a clinical trial that discovered how some individuals reported a mood lift of up to three months after just a single day of treatment. While it doesn't last that long for me (2 weeks), it is pretty impressive to see such results.

Vaporized DMT Shows Promise for Rapid and Sustained Relief in Treatment-Resistant Depression - Louis A. Faillace, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

A new phase 2a clinical trial brings hope to patients struggling with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) through an innovative approach: inhaled N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT). In a landmark study published in Neuropsychopharmacology (2025), researchers led by Marcelo Falchi-Carvalho, Fernanda...

med.uth.edu

 

[neversickanymore]

I'm the last one to defend plutocrats, but honestly the Sackler family didn't do anything the other pharmaceutical companies weren't already doing. The Sacklers were just picked as the face of the so called opioid crisis because every good propaganda campaign needs a symbol people can project their feelings on, as the father of the PR-Industry, Edward Bernays, once correctly stated.
As far as the the opioid "crisis" is concerned: it doesn't exist. We have an (intentional) overdose crisis, but no opioid crisis. People should look to the 19th century when drug laws didn't exist at all and every drug was freely available and take a look at the state of society back then. No [insert drug] crisis to be seen. Sure, some people became addicted to heroin, cocaine, opium, etc. but society functioned because these people weren't criminalized. They could pursue careers, have families and just lead overall normal lives despite their addiction, which proves that drugs, no matter how addictive, are NOT the problem. Prohibition with all its effects however IS a problem. Now try to make the stupid sheeple understand that and we'd live in a much better world.
But it has always been easier for the stupid human species to look for an easy scapegoat than to critically reflect on ones opinions. People just like to be herded like the idiotic animals they are.

- Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur -

I call bs.. convince me?

 

[GaumarolBostich]

There is calculated, unscrupulous intent behind this

Yes, if common sense of fear hits personal agenda it will turn into laws. Yes these who missionize the most, so often try to control their own personal demons. Drugs are part of human nature and there is no doubt that they are used in every society. That doesn't prove a master plan, even I as a user would be sceptical to liberate all drugs. Take Alcohol, the common legal drug: so many families traumatized for two and more generations. I am convinced that there is no easy and radical answer to the hunger of our brain.

Yes, drugs are stigmatized which is odd because any pharma medicine is a drug, so who should decide if DMT is part of health care? Institution (controlled) or you by yourself (radical liberal)?

 

[BK38]

I'm the last one to defend plutocrats, but honestly the Sackler family didn't do anything the other pharmaceutical companies weren't already doing. The Sacklers were just picked as the face of the so called opioid crisis because every good propaganda campaign needs a symbol people can project their feelings on, as the father of the PR-Industry, Edward Bernays, once correctly stated.
As far as the the opioid "crisis" is concerned: it doesn't exist. We have an (intentional) overdose crisis, but no opioid crisis. People should look to the 19th century when drug laws didn't exist at all and every drug was freely available and take a look at the state of society back then. No [insert drug] crisis to be seen. Sure, some people became addicted to heroin, cocaine, opium, etc. but society functioned because these people weren't criminalized. They could pursue careers, have families and just lead overall normal lives despite their addiction, which proves that drugs, no matter how addictive, are NOT the problem. Prohibition with all its effects however IS a problem. Now try to make the stupid sheeple understand that and we'd live in a much better world.
But it has always been easier for the stupid human species to look for an easy scapegoat than to critically reflect on ones opinions. People just like to be herded like the idiotic animals they are.

- Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur -

What an astute observation

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

we can thank the Sackler family for this absurd "Opiate Crisis" bullshit. seems like every movie or TV series I see now has some sort of element pushing an agenda against opiates and it's fucking ridiculous. I take them responsibly for chronic back pain and only low dose hydrocodone but I never abuse them or anything else, it pisses me off when they make such a big deal about it but then you watch movies like euphoria and they're doing Coke and acid and all kinds of other shit like Molly and MDMA math you name it and that doesn't become a crisis as far as the government's concerned. They should be looking at the fentanyl as the biggest crisis in the US right now maybe even the world but not just standard opiates like Percocet or hydrocodone etc etc. It truly pisses me off lol

Hopefully this doesn't come off as I'm disagreeing....

But I actually don't have any ill-will toward the Sackler family personally. People are responsible for their own choices & the Sackler family provided pain relief to people who needed it. It wasn't their fault some one mixed Oxy with 20 xanax & a bottle of vodka & died. The Sackler family is being scapegoated.


Tramadol was completely unscheduled for 30+ years in the USA. That was my introduction to opioid use really. I had tried hydrocodone & codeine before but didn't care for them much. But my first time taking 200-400mg of tramadol in a day.... WOW! I finally felt like a normal human being with normal energy for once in my life. But I don't see any lawsuits against the makers of tramadol or anything. It's all part of the stupid agenda to attack one entity (the Sackler family) and make an example out of them, to further their anti-opioid fearmongering agenda.

I think it's hypocritical & part of the agenda to demonize opioids, to place all the blame on the Sackler family. And all these lawsuits & shit.
My sister died in 2019 from alcohol-induced liver failure. Why can't my family sue to alcohol companies?? It's literally the same thing, except for some reason, alcohol addiction & alcohol deaths are acceptable, but opioids aren't. And the Sackler family is a scapegoat the government can parade around & demonize.

Now they're making bank on the Suboxone market. And Sublocade bullshit. More shackles, less euphoria & pain relief basically.

Everything else you said, I completely agree with you!! Actually I think we're both in agreement & you might just be pointing out how the Sackler family is a scapegoat, rather than saying you're personally against the Sackler family.

There is an agenda to make Americans terrified of opioids, so that they'll be fine with giving up their right to pain relief & bodily autonomy.

I just had gout in my wrist this (rare, but can happen). One of the most painful things I've experienced in awhile. I went to the doctor, thought they'd throw me AT LEAST like 5 pain meds or something, so I could sleep through the pain. But nope.

I'm so sick of America's war on opioids. It enrages me to an endless degree.

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

the Sackler family didn't do anything the other pharmaceutical companies weren't already doing. The Sacklers were just picked as the face of the so called opioid crisis because every good propaganda campaign needs a symbol people can project their feelings on, as the father of the PR-Industry, Edward Bernays, once correctly stated.

we can thank the Sackler family for this absurd "Opiate Crisis" bullshit.

Completely in agreement with Hexenstahl on this one. The Sackler family is just the scapegoat for their little anti-opioid agenda they're pushing here in the US.

The Sackler family is mostly guilty of doing nothing but providing people with a drug that gives decent (even amazing for some) pain relief.
Anyone that died afterwards was through lack of drug education, accidents, shit that could've been prevented if society was realistic about drugs at all instead of trying to shush it away like a moral stain on humanity.

 

[Hexenstahl]

I call bs.. convince me?

No I'm not going to convince you. Please don't take this personally, but I have stopped arguing with people partly because my experience shows that you can't convince people. You can drop some information and if they are open minded they will look at it and either accept it or not, but this whole "I just need to deliver the best, most intellectually sophisticated argument with a whole bunch of proofs, studies and this and that, and THAT will surely convince them" approach simply doesn't work because of something called "being emotionally invested". It's the achilles heel of humanity. Another reason why I'm past debating or arguing with people, especially online, is because of my mental health. This is the main reason actually. When I'm coming home I just want my peace. I don't want to log in to my account and have a whole bunch of randos pick fights with me.

Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against civil discourse, but if the other side already comes in with the intention to bulldoze others' opinions by calling them "bullshit", and then throws in a little "convince me" to make themselves look less like an overly opinionated person...well, that just proves to me that such an individual isn't partaking in the discussion out of good faith and least of all because they actually want to be convinced. Again, don't take it personally, but I neither have the will nor the energy to play the stupid convincing game anymore. It's a fruitless endeavor. If you don't believe me, just try to remember the last time someone came back to you and said something akin to "Hi XYZ, I just realized that I was wrong. Thank you for changing my point of view". After 36y of having lived on this planet, I have only met two people who said something along those lines. So in light of this, YOU had better convince ME why I should waste my precious time and energy arguing with others? If you can actually convince me on this one, then I will promise to try and convince you of the views I expressed in my previous comment. Until then, my comment stands "as is" and will convince some (BK38, DeathIndustrial88) while not convincing others (you, gaumarol), which is absolutely fine by me. Take care...

That doesn't prove a master plan

The proof is in the pudding. All I'm gonna say is this: reflect on the state of our society in regards to the war on drugs, all the while asking yourself this very simple question: "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) There you have it. A little mind-tool for you and @neversickanymore to convince yourselves instead of asking others to do the work your brains should be actually doing...and if YOU can't convince yourselves, well how in the godamn world am I gonna be able to convince you?!

EDIT:
I'm going to end this on a diplomatic note and say something that we can perhaps all agree with: we are all wrong on varying degrees. Nobody has the complete picture. In the end, everything is opinion shaped by how we individually perceive the world. I know, it sounds terribly postmodernistic, but that's how I see it...

 

[neversickanymore]

but you spend that much time attempting to convince me that your not going to bother trying to convince me..

 

[Hexenstahl]

Yes you are absolutely right. I was totally wrong and stupid to think otherwise. How could I have not seen this? All hail neversickanymore!

 

[neversickanymore]

No I'm not going to convince you. Please don't take this personally, but I have stopped arguing with people partly because my experience shows that you can't convince people. You can drop some information and if they are open minded they will look at it and either accept it or not, but this whole "I just need to deliver the best, most intellectually sophisticated argument with a whole bunch of proofs, studies and this and that, and THAT will surely convince them" approach simply doesn't work because of something called "being emotionally invested". It's the achilles heel of humanity. Another reason why I'm past debating or arguing with people, especially online, is because of my mental health. This is the main reason actually. When I'm coming home I just want my peace. I don't want to log in to my account and have a whole bunch of randos pick fights with me.

Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against civil discourse, but if the other side already comes in with the intention to bulldoze others' opinions by calling them "bullshit", and then throws in a little "convince me" to make themselves look less like an overly opinionated person...well, that just proves to me that such an individual isn't partaking in the discussion out of good faith and least of all because they actually want to be convinced. Again, don't take it personally, but I neither have the will nor the energy to play the stupid convincing game anymore. It's a fruitless endeavor. If you don't believe me, just try to remember the last time someone came back to you and said something akin to "Hi XYZ, I just realized that I was wrong. Thank you for changing my point of view". After 36y of having lived on this planet, I have only met two people who said something along those lines. So in light of this, YOU had better convince ME why I should waste my precious time and energy arguing with others? If you can actually convince me on this one, then I will promise to try and convince you of the views I expressed in my previous comment. Until then, my comment stands "as is" and will convince some (BK38, DeathIndustrial88) while not convincing others (you, gaumarol), which is absolutely fine by me. Take care...


The proof is in the pudding. All I'm gonna say is this: reflect on the state of our society in regards to the war on drugs, all the while asking yourself this very simple question: "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) There you have it. A little mind-tool for you and @neversickanymore to convince yourselves instead of asking others to do the work your brains should be actually doing...and if YOU can't convince yourselves, well how in the godamn world am I gonna be able to convince you?!

EDIT:
I'm going to end this on a diplomatic note and say something that we can perhaps all agree with: we are all wrong on varying degrees. Nobody has the complete picture. In the end, everything is opinion shaped by how we individually perceive the world. I know, it sounds terribly postmodernistic, but that's how I see it...

but you spent that much effort trying to convince me that attempting to convince me that attempting to convince me is a waste of time. Why not try as usually a person who expresses interest likely has open mind.

 

[GaumarolBostich]

I'm going to end this on a diplomatic note and say something that we can perhaps all agree with: we are all wrong on varying degrees. Nobody has the complete picture. In the end, everything is opinion shaped by how we individually perceive the world. I know, it sounds terribly postmodernistic, but that's how I see it...

I love that state of mind. And the Cui Bono thing.

My diplomatic note would be that we all should refrain from absolute statements about human behaviour because if close to nothing is absolute clear in our own head why should anything count for veryone?

 

[Hexenstahl]

but you spent that much effort trying to convince me that attempting to convince me that attempting to convince me is a waste of time. Why not try as usually a person who expresses interest likely has open mind.

Yes you are absolutely right. I was totally wrong and stupid to think otherwise. How could I have not seen this? All hail neversickanymore!

 

[Jung and Stoopid]

Could you flood your brain with dopamine as you take cocaine so as to trap more?

For example....take a line, the go masterbait.

Will that trap that dopamine being released during orgasm?

Uh, yes, however you do not really want to do such a thing for a few reasons. And masterbait-ing doesn't really flood your brain with dopamine like a drug would. That's a vastly more complex brain mechanism.

For example, if you were to take cocaine or cathinones in combination with a dopamine precursor like DLPA, you will indeed get higher... however, you will also hugely increase the side effects such as psychosis, jerky movements, jaw clenching, heart strain...

Taking cocaine + a dopamine precursor is effectively the same pharmacological situation as taking MDMA + 5-htp (serotonin precursor). It's going to be inherently dangerous and will fast track you to the worst outcomes possible.

Cocaine already releases an insane amount of dopamine. Adding more fuel to the fire is going to end in disaster and the most extreme consequences every time.

Cocaine, meth, cathinones are all so potent at releasing dopamine, the idea of adding more is foolhardy and extremely dangerous at best.

DLPA is amazing for cocaine comedowns, but I will NEVER mix it with the drug itself ever again. Unless your goal is to end up like some tweaker dancing around in a Walmart aisle on a YouTube video, avoid combining dopamine precursors with hard stimilants.