Idiots Who Are Pro-drug and Think Drugs Are Bad for You

[wizekrak]

@wizekrak, nootropics and antioxidants dont cause strain. far from it. also i imagine the goal of life extension research would be to find ways to keep you alive that dont strain the body (otherwise it would be rather counterproductive)

I wasn't inlcuding antioxidants in my stab at genetic engineering. Maybe in haste I forgot to segregate the two points. Basically what I was saying was that antioxidants aren't doing anything new for the body they're just preventing an degredation process that occurs naturally. They aren't a huge leap in medical science.

 

[qwedsa]

chubba,

what we want for toxic effects is basic stuff. when we go to a toxic drug like meth on wikipedia or a government site, and goto physical effects, we see tooth decay, damage to dopamine neurons, etc. also its easy to see how keeping the body running on the sympathetic nervous system would lead to strain

then we go to, for example, an opiate. no mechanisms of toxicity mentioned anywhere (except with frequent heavy long term dosing, there is possible neurotoxicity to, iirc, some limbic pathways). heart rate and blood pressure are reduced. muscles are relaxed. yeah, homeostasis is changed, but that isnt a bad thing at all

by the way, as far as schooling goes, youre well ahead of me. i usually don't fully understand studies either, but the abstracts are usually readable

 

[SardonicNihilist]

purplefirefly, depression is a choice made by the depressed person. You have complete control over your mind - every thought, emotion, feeling, sensation. If you want to pretend you don't have control, you start to act like a victim when in reality you're the perpetrator of your mental problems.

AAhhh a scientologist BLer!!!

Geeeeez, the point of the matter is, DRUGS DO HARM. Get over it.

No shit!


There is no disputing that drugs do harm, in one way or another. They are chemicals which alter the way the body works, whether this is to correct an imbalance caused by an existing organic problem in the person, or a foreign pathogen. Antibiotics kill plenty of stuff in the body that 'should' be there, but the benefits outweigh the relatively minimal side effects. Recreational drugs flood the CNS with excess serotonin, dopamine etc. ( whatever neurotransmitter) than normal, thus the pleasurable experience. ALL drugs do some damage, and it is subjective whether the person is easily able, or willing, to recover from it.

An average healthy person's liver can cope with a few drinks a day, but excessive intake will indisputably cause damage. Psychedelics open the proverbial doors of perception beyond a point that most people are normally able to achieve unassisted by psychotropic substances. Methamphetamine is so bad for you, definitely toxic to the body- ever missed a shot? It swells and stings, unlike heroin which is much less toxic to the body.

Again, there is no question these substances are 'bad' for you, ie. do some damage; the question is how easily a person can recover from it (and whether they want to)

For those who think otherwise, you'll eventually learn.

You will know of people ending up in psych wards from excessive doses, having dental problems like teeth falling out or rotting from the inside due to lost enamel, sores, abscesses and pimples covering the skin, losing the ability to dream (or at least remember them in the slightest), problems with memory recall and learning difficulties, anxiety, depression panic attacks... not to mention all the shit that comes with addiction.

Maybe it will even be you.

Responsible use in moderation is the key- with any substance. If you are healthy and diligent you can indulge in any drug, and be all the wiser for it, but only as you repetitively repair or incur physical damage of some degree.

 

[Coolio]

wizekrak, the fact that it's considered sane to worship Jesus Christ but insane to think the CIA is following you so you should wear a tinfoil hat, is enough evidence that modern psychology is all a scam. It's belittling and accusatory to hear people tell you you have a 'mental illness' and you need to be 'treated'.

 

[Coolio]

Psychedelics open the proverbial doors of perception beyond a point that most people are normally able to achieve unassisted by psychotropic substances.
...
Again, there is no question these substances are 'bad' for you, ie. do some damage;

What on earth are you talking about? How are psychedelics bad for you in ANY way, and what damage do they do to you?

 

[SardonicNihilist]

...the fact that it's considered sane to worship Jesus Christ but insane to think the CIA is following you so you should wear a tinfoil hat, is enough evidence that modern psychology is all a scam. ...

^and I guess this also proves global warming is a scam and OJ was innocent, and Elvis works at the 7-11 around the corner??
8)

Google 'Logic for Beginners', please.

 

[wizekrak]

wizekrak, the fact that it's considered sane to worship Jesus Christ but insane to think the CIA is following you so you should wear a tinfoil hat, is enough evidence that modern psychology is all a scam. It's belittling and accusatory to hear people tell you you have a 'mental illness' and you need to be 'treated'.

Belief in god isn't considered rational. If you wanted you could treat religious fanatics for delusional psychosis. Neither is the beleif that the CIA is out to get you. one is more accepted than the other but that doesn't mean that either of them are healthy.

Do you find it belittling and accusatory when a doctor tells you you have a sinus infection and you need treatment? Receiving a diagnosis isn't accusatory it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Rated E]

What on earth are you talking about? How are psychedelics bad for you in ANY way, and what damage do they do to you?

your being dangerously close minded about this. How can you not identify that there are risks and harmful side affects of taking psychedelics?

 

[wizekrak]

What on earth are you talking about? How are psychedelics bad for you in ANY way, and what damage do they do to you?

HPPD.

 

[Coolio]

First and foremost, risk is NOT damage! It's not harmful! Risk is probability.

Second, I don't identify any harmful side effects. Please identify them for me.

 

[Coolio]

HPPD is not an effect of psychedelics, it's a rare potential side effect. That's like considering 'death' or 'stroke' or 'aneurysm' or 'divorce' to be the damaging effects of cocaine.

I've never had HPPD, so how have psychedelics been bad or damaging for me? (99% of psychedelic users should demand the same explanation, because HPPD didn't happen to them...)

 

[wizekrak]

I don't see how you can't see that drugs are damaging. Maybe that's the damage that psychedelics have done to you, self delusion? who knows.

Just because it didn't happen this time doesn't mean it won't happen latter. You're rolling the dice. If you're comfortable with that risk then so be it. What if you develope HPPD next time you trip?

Stroke is a damaging effect of cocaine, cocaine is cardiotoxic at high enough level or if used "improperly" will lead to heart attack and stroke. Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to thousands of other.

 

[Tritoch]

Damage and danger are two completely different concepts. Damage is injury, in terms of damage to humans it's a biological/chemical process. Danger is just risk, it's within the realm of statistics and probability, and it's not harmful or injurious to humans.

risk is NOT damage! It's not harmful! Risk is probability.

Exactly!

 

[Coolio]

Because nobody is willing to offer a detailed explanation of how they are. They're saying "it's obvious!". I'm saying it's not obvious. Back to Sardonic's suggestion I read up on logic for beginner's... No proof is necessary that something does not exist or is not true. Only things that you claim to exist/be true need a proof. Nothing exists unless provable in logic, and you do not need to offer a proof of the non-existence of something. So until someone offers up a proof detailing exactly how/why psychedelic drugs are damaging (not how they are DANGEROUS, because danger is not damage!), those of us arguing that not all drugs are necessarily harmful are right.

 

[SardonicNihilist]

What on earth are you talking about? How are psychedelics bad for you in ANY way, and what damage do they do to you?

You obviously don't know anyone who has over used psychedelics consistently for years.

Put simply, it can make you a less than functioning member of society. Uncontrollable mood swings, depression, anxiety 'zoning out' and shivering in the foetal position for absolutely no reason, and generally losing the ability to relate to other human beings. Sometimes people get 'trapped inside their own heads', which can be fun temporarily, but you must be strong enough inside to know that you will come back from the trip.

emergency people, after administering an anti psychotic (seroquel I think) advised us, 'if she's still like this in the morning, take her to the psych ward'. Thankfully she did come back.

(deleted first part of story as too personal)

Basically if you can handle it, then you'll learn and grow from the experience, despite the minimal damage you've endured.

But to think it is harmless to drop LSD trips in multiples of ten, or prepare 500g mushroom doses (minced with a bit of water and honey only) to be shared between two people... then you're seriously kidding yourself.

And frankly it's that attitude that shits me, as when arrogant, ignorant dickheads fuck up through irresponsible drug use, it further demonises ALL drugs and discredits responsible drug users- tainted by association, as they say.


There's nothing wrong with ANY drug, as long as it's used responsibly, i.e. you know your substance, the effects, risks, DOSE, duration etc.

 

[Tritoch]

As far as HPPD - it's still under a different category then brain cell loss in my book. Remember, this thread was basically supposed to be about people who think they lose brain cells (or whatever) everytime they get high - whatever the drug.

 

[wizekrak]

OK, danger exists. That means that in a certain subset of users damage results (hence why it is dangerous). Now since damage results the activity is damaging, clear enough?

 

[Chubba75]

What on earth are you talking about? How are psychedelics bad for you in ANY way, and what damage do they do to you?

I ended up in hospital for 3 days on IV's after my last mushroom trip.

Oh yeah, I got strong HPPD too :D

OK, danger exists. That means that in a certain subset of users damage results (hence why it is dangerous). Now since damage results the activity is damaging, clear enough?

You would think so wouldn't you?

 

[Coolio]

Basically if you can handle it, then you'll learn and grow from the experience, despite the minimal damage you've endured.

Okay, once again. WHAT DAMAGE? Listen to what Tritoch, the OP, just said. This thread is not about the possible risks of addiction and mental illness stemming from drug abuse, it's about killing brain/organ cells from ANY use. If I use psychedelics and I don't end up in a psych ward, what damage was done? Can you explain this to me please?


Psychedelics, opiates, marijuana, benzodiazepines, nitrites, etc. do not cause any damage to the human body when used recreationally, even in addicted users. When you start interjecting shit about the possible risks of heavy drug abuse by stupid people, you're off topic.

 

[Tritoch]

^ Nice post again, Coolio! You're really helping me get my point across.

EDIT: Can't we also add amphetamines to that list? Just because meth-addicts (the only example people so far have used to argue) might abuse them to the point where they DO in fact cause damage (?) doesn't mean they're INHERENTLY bad.