RCs Safest non neurotoxic drug?

[Ziiirp]

No drug is safe. Even if a substance is labeled "safe" after passing controlled clinical studies, there is still a high risk of unknown drug interactions and/or abnormal metabolism of certain subjects, that can cause adverse side effects. RCs are even less safe.

That said : I agree with some posters above, that classical psychedelics have the least potential to cause physical harm. Dissos are excluded from that group, because imho they are usually much more invasive to the organism than 5ht2a-agonists.

 

[Mycophile]

This ^.
Even marijuana has long term effects on the lungs/brain. Ask someone 20 years down the road if they don't have memory loss or scar tissue on their lungs.

I don't believe that weed causes long term memory loss and haven't heard of many studies that say it does.

Short term memory loss is what can happen, but I've never heard of it causing dementia or alzheimers.

I also haven't heard of that much scar tissue in lungs from weed.

A few years back I had an X ray done on my lungs because I'd been a VERY heavy weed smoker for 15 years and I also have asthma so you'd think the scar damage would be worse.

We are talking that I smoked every single day multiple times a day for about 5 years, and the other ten I was usually smoking at least a few times a week, but the X ray showed ZERO visible scar damage.

I was really surprised.

 

[Mycophile]

^^^
Yo, that is encouraging to hear re: lack of scar tissue... that's something I occasionally worry about and appreciate real world evidence on.

Yeah, I mean I can't say for sure that NO ONE will get it, and sooner or later a heavy weed smoker might, but IMO SERIOUS scar tissue in the lungs is going to be caused by cigarettes, especially with all the fiber glass they put in to cut up your lungs and all the other chemicals, and Obviously it goes without saying you are going to get bad scar tissue damage in your lungs from smoking meth, crack, heroin, PCP, and all that kind of stuff.

But I was pretty worried before getting that X ray assuming my lungs would look bad, and the X ray techs said they saw no visible scar damage and I looked at the X ray images myself, and while I'm not used to looking at X rays of lungs so I had nothing to compare them to and haven't seen what scarred up lungs look like...they still just looked like normal lungs.

I was glad I got it done, but I still wouldn't take it for granted that weed doesn't hurt your lungs, ESPECIALLY being an asthmatic like I am.

I don't smoke much weed these days, and I also have a vaporizer so when I do happen to buy weed once or twice a year I usually vape at least half of it which is less harsh on the lungs.

 

[Hodor]

I think one of the main issues with research chemicals is that their novelty means we have a much more limited understanding of their potential for danger then other, more well-established drugs. For instance, we know that Methamphetamine is neurotoxic and Dextroamphetamine essentially isn't. These two chemicals really aren't that different in structure or in their effects. A large part of why we know what we know about these two drugs is because they've been around for over a century and have seen major use for like 80 years.

You can't really make a blanket statement about all RC's though - as I've said in other threads on this topic, Etizolam is arguably one of the most popular "research chemicals" in the West, while in East Asia it's just a normal prescription benzo*. There isn't really anything "experimental" about Etizolam, it's just that there was never any reason to market (and thus legally regulate) it in places where Ativan and Xanax were already firmly entrenched.

(* yeah, I know Etizolam is technically a thienodiazepine, not a benzodiazepine)

On the other hand, there's stuff like the NBOMe hallucinogens or the JWH cannabinoids that were literally intended as "research chemicals" in the sense that they were created to strongly and selectively bind to certain receptors to better understand their function, distribution, or the shape of their binding sites, not get people high on them.

Anyway, a couple of people here suggested the 4-HO-tryptamines, which do indeed offer rewarding psychedelic experiences while lacking the toxicity of the NBOMe's or 5-MeO-tryptamines... but didn't the OP state he wanted something to use several times a week?

 

[ChodeMastaFlex]

Yeah, I mean I can't say for sure that NO ONE will get it, and sooner or later a heavy weed smoker might, but IMO SERIOUS scar tissue in the lungs is going to be caused by cigarettes, especially with all the fiber glass they put in to cut up your lungs and all the other chemicals, and Obviously it goes without saying you are going to get bad scar tissue damage in your lungs from smoking meth, crack, heroin, PCP, and all that kind of stuff.

But I was pretty worried before getting that X ray assuming my lungs would look bad, and the X ray techs said they saw no visible scar damage and I looked at the X ray images myself, and while I'm not used to looking at X rays of lungs so I had nothing to compare them to and haven't seen what scarred up lungs look like...they still just looked like normal lungs.

I was glad I got it done, but I still wouldn't take it for granted that weed doesn't hurt your lungs, ESPECIALLY being an asthmatic like I am.

I don't smoke much weed these days, and I also have a vaporizer so when I do happen to buy weed once or twice a year I usually vape at least half of it which is less harsh on the lungs.

The fiberglass in cigarettes thing is a myth.