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

[Chubba75]

Well that's fine, I would just like him to explain to us the proper physiology and pharmacology backing up the statements. Right now he's in the same league as the "idiots" that comment without any evidence.

uh no. OP was not talking about excessive usage. many drugs are either so close to endogenous molecules or in many cases ARE endogenous molecules. many recreational drugs simply aren't toxic when not used excessively

That doesn't mean anything. This statement begins with a profound misunderstanding of the human body, and ends with a blanket comment.

 

[Rated E]

They are linked, you can not seperate them.

Thats what iv been trying to tell them!

I just needed someone with a higher post count to come along so those meanies would take notice :D

 

[qwedsa]

qwedsa is insisting this thread is exclusively about physical damage.

it's about people claiming that all recreational drugs drain spinal fluid, and kill millions of brain cells, etc, yet do them anyway

 

[wizekrak]

Im confused with your participation and 2000 posts on the site if thats your attitude. Fair enough thats your opinon just slightly confused.

A lot can change in 6 years. Just because I don't partake doesn't mean I can't be part of the community.

 

[purplefirefly]

uh no. OP was not talking about excessive usage. many drugs are either so close to endogenous molecules or in many cases ARE endogenous molecules. many recreational drugs simply aren't toxic when not used excessively

Where did the OP mention ANYTHING at all about quantifiable usage? His post was vague. You cannot make the assumption that he was speaking about usage in moderation, he simply did not clarify this.

 

[qwedsa]

^he did in a later post. im repeating myself again

 

[Chubba75]

qwedsa, do you understand the pharmacology of the drugs you are defending?

 

[Voodoochild870]

I hate that attitude to, its hard to argue that to people while there drunk though haha

That is true. Not to sound hypocrit cause Im on the stuff myself now, but cokeheads tend to be just as big assholes as booze hounds.

off topic though...

 

[Rated E]

^^(at qwedsa) yes, but ill repeat myself again. Why should the physical damage only be considered. And why is everyone making addiction exempt from discussion, seems like a pretty valid fuken point that drugs can be harmful.

 

[qwedsa]

Right now he's in the same league as the "idiots" that comment without any evidence.

um, you haven't contributed evidence either. i thought the lack of toxicity of the drugs i mentioned was common knowledge on bluelight

Well that's fine, I would just like him to explain to us the proper physiology and pharmacology backing up the statements.

you can wikipedia the drugs. look them up on pubmed. google the drug name and toxicity

FOR EXAMPLE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Physiological_effects

preventing vomiting, increasing dry mouth, causing deeper breathing, increasing appetite, etc

these dont sound toxic to me!

 

[qwedsa]

^^(at qwedsa) yes, but ill repeat myself again. Why should the physical damage only be considered. And why is everyone making addiction exempt from discussion, seems like a pretty valid fuken point that drugs can be harmful.

because the thread is about idiots who think they are doing horrible damage when they aren't. not that this has been discussed at all, because its just 5 pages of misunderstanding, because the OP was not careful in his wording

 

[qwedsa]

qwedsa, do you understand the pharmacology of the drugs you are defending?

yes. do you? do you want a thorough explanation in my own words (i already did, but apparently it wasnt enough), or do you want me to cite meta studies? care to cite some yourself?

 

[Rated E]

Qwedsa. No, marijuana isnt toxic, thats common knowlegde. Dont try and tell me it doesnt have any harmful effects though, thats bs.

 

[purplefirefly]

^he did in a later post. im repeating myself again

I think you are confusing your posts trying to make sense of what he is saying with his ACUTAL posts clarifying what he is saying. He mentioned nothing about using in moderation.

 

[wizekrak]

Cocaine is cardiotoxic
Alcohol is hepatotoxic
Meth and amphetamine derivatives (MDA, MDMA, MDEA, etc...) are neurotoxic

Aside from pot these are the big three in my city.

If you use certain substances you will do damage, it's just a matter of how much you're willing to accept for the high. Overloading any organ system in the human body is dangerous be it through toxicity or potential overdose.

 

[Coolio]

Well I'm not sure where you pulled the biology statement from, but in medicine we are taught extensive pharmacology. When we consider the effects of drugs, we look at EVERY deviation from homeostasis that results from the administration, even down to the cellular level.

Uh, what does damage have to do with a deviation from homeostasis? Look up the definition of "change", and look up the definition of "damage" in the dictionary. Changes can be positive or negative, whereas damage is a change that results in injury.

 

[qwedsa]

^disturbing homeostasis is hardly 'doing damage' since the body fully returns to normal once the drug is gone, or shortly thereafter (unless there was some mechanism of toxicity)

i dont doubt you have your medical knowledge. i myself have spent, over the past year or so, several hundreds of hours of neurosci and pharm reading, because i like the topic. books, research, textbooks, internet entries, and the less 'scientific' sources, like bluelight

 

[Coolio]

If you use certain substances you will do damage, it's just a matter of how much you're willing to accept for the high. Overloading any organ system in the human body is dangerous be it through toxicity or potential overdose.

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.

 

[wizekrak]

Uh, what does damage have to do with a deviation from homeostasis? Look up the definition of "change", and look up the definition of "damage" in the dictionary. Changes can be positive or negative, whereas damage is a change that results in injury.

The body is run by a complex system of feedback loops. If you deviate from homeostatis you tend to screw around with countless other systems. Anytime the body is running outside of it's tolerance it's doing itself damage. Typically most changes to the human body's physiology (unless made to correct an endogenous flaw) will cause more harm than good.

As far as the damage/danger point goes:

Would you rather I said overloading organ systems is damaging? It is.

 

[Rated E]

Uh, what does damage have to do with a deviation from homeostasis? Look up the definition of "change", and look up the definition of "damage" in the dictionary. Changes can be positive or negative, whereas damage is a change that results in injury.

So you know how to use a dictionary. Congratulations.

Its those negative changes which are considered as damage by people with a little common sense.