Cocaine Should I let my friend try crack?

[tricomb]

Yes or No

Do you care about this person?
Do you care about his family, present and future?
Do you care about his happiness and love life when it comes down to these things vs crack?
Do you understand that crack cocaine is sold on every single block in every neighborhood in every town no matter how populated?
Do you understand that if he wants to try drugs so bad, he WILL have that option given to him?
Do you think you could live with yourself if YOU are the person who ensures he get's addicted and stays addicted, and with the example you've set for him so far, glorifying the drug in the ways you described around him but hiding from him the majority of crack addiction that is ugly enough even you yourself struggle so much with it?
Would they mind that you used their name in this thread, because doing so is not only rude and disrespectful but it's flat out stupid.
Would you consider yourself to be a better person since becoming a crack cocaine addict?
Would you consider yourself to be living a better life than before cocaine?
Would you consider the person you are today, the reflection in the mirror, to be better off than before the rocks?
Would you consider yourself to be a good friend?
Would you consider yourself to be a good person?
Were you on crack while you posted this debate you're having with yourself?
Do you have a functioning Serotonin system and free of sociopathic diagnoses?
Do you remember your first time getting high and who you got high with and where these people are today?
Do you remember posting "But he only sees the good side" or "I've been using for 8 months" (So you're barely leaving the "beginner" level of crack addiction?
Do you think that a trust fund wins the battle vs cocaine? Most of my childhood trust fund friends who I used to get high with are dead today, and none of their money lasted them long enough until they were doing the cracked out things one does on crack to get more crack, and they died on crack that they had to do something degrading, unethical, disgusting, or pitiful to get the fix that killed them, there is no trust fund big enough, and the larger the trust fund, the chances of them dying and losing everything about themselves to the drug skyrocket.
Do you honestly believe that you are the only way he can get cocaine? If so, you clearly don't know shit about hard drugs or the concept of supply and demand, and that this is a supplier's market, the demand is so high the existing suppliers haven't stopped supplying rock? The suppliers newer and much more lucrative methamphetamine, so potent and so much longer in duration that none of the most die hard crack heads I know/knew haven't switched to and never looked back to crack?

Seriously man, Not intentionally being hostile, and I think you just need to understand some shit you might not be seeing due to your mindset, threads like these are inevitably going to be met with the emotion filled extremely strong opinions like the ones you have received already, it's just that seriously when all of us addicts come in here and take the time out of our days to give you the reality check you so clearly are in need of, don't respond defending or justifying your original post, that will only incur further outrage from the people who give a fuck about helping you realize that if you gave a fuck at all, this would be a question so absurdly obvious you should know the answer just by looking in the mirror.

I hope that this thread has been helpful and that you take the advice you've been given and think about everything said here, and really think about when you have no more crack and no more drugs at all, just you and you're conscience on your way to sobriety willingly or forced, as you become more aware of what you're doing and what you've already done and the results, how will you be able to live with yourself?

You only live once sure, but as far as any of us can tell, you only fucking die once too, and you're asking if you want to be the first one to start digging the grave beside the one you've been digging yourself.

The question isn't should you do this. That is not even a question, no one should do this. What you're asking us is whether you CAN do this and get away with it, and you wrote enough in your OP to conflict any chance of this being something you can do, but then again, it depends on how you answered the questions I asked you. If you lack a proper serotonin system and are a diagnosed sociopath, in which case you would not have asked this question or have given any thought to this topic whatsoever, likely not even be a crack addict either even, or if you are so strung out that your judgement has deteriorated this far in only 8 months, then please get some professional help, this type of thread is very very concerning and raises red flags for most of us, that's why you see a bunch of drug addicts telling you how far from reality you seem to be, while holding the fate of a "friend" in your hands.

TL;DR this entire thread is an example and an answer as to whether a friend lets a friend "try" crack knowing so much about their lives that you went as far as to mention his trust fund and how that should be able to maintain a decent habit, honestly it seems like you just want more crack and understandably, a friend to do such a dirty deed with. My advice? There are enough of us suffering from addiction because of "friends" like you, and I'm sure that you know other friends you could get high with that already are addicts and maybe then after spending most of your time with people using crack and hard drugs, just let your experiences hanging out with dope fiends who you consider to be a friend. How good of a friend do they turn out to be, or become an enemy?

I'll leave this thread open until this evening, at which point it will be closed after the OP has read my post and other people have had a chance to further weigh in here. So.... can you live with yourself when escaping reality / drugs are removed from your life?

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

^tricomb has it.

No potentially awesome experience is worth your health, or life, for that matter. Also consider the others you affect because of use. You aren't a good friend if you let someone you like or love do this, man.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Perhaps, but he doesn't seem to realize that knowing a lot of big words isn't a substitute for knowing how to use those words properly. His post is borderline unreadable.

A text indited with an erudite vocabulary and intelligent syntax may likely be derided because of the reading level its proper interpretation necessitates. Is an illiterate oaf being true when he proclaims Hegel or Kant or Marx cannot write properly when it is he who cannot read properly?


I write for the elation it gives me. It's, to me, a form of art, creativity, and self-expression. I shan't debase myself by limiting my writing to appease people who only read text messages, Facebook posts, Tweets, and learn to communicate via dolts and troglodytes of the hoi polloi and television.

If tl;dr (in other words, too stupid; couldn't read), my point is thus:

I write not as though you're someone to impress, which you veritably aren't. So, if you don't like my writing then don't fucking read it!

 

[Crankinit]

then don't fucking read it!

I don't. But it's obvious you're overcompensating, I'd imagine in an attempt to appear intelligent, or in an attempt to use excessive syllables to cover up the fact that your actual contribution to the debate has no weight. It's possible to write eloquently and still convey you ideas to their intended audience in an efficient fashion.

And are you seriously comparing your post on a drug harm reduction forum to the philosophical works of Hegel or Kant?

If you really do get a kick out of antiquated language, excessive verbosity and purple prose, buy a diary or start a blog and write to yours hearts contentment there, but writing that way when you're trying to convey an argument in a discussion (on the internet of all places) is just absurd.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Here, I was kind enough to take a few minutes to compose this comment, so that you can have something else to quibble about and not get bored

I don't.

So are you a liar or do you typically critique and quibble over something you haven't even read?

But it's obvious you're overcompensating,

If you're indicative of the average Bluelight forum-goer or the quintessential reader of my posts, then I suppose you're right. Of course, in my defense, it seems such a challenge—indeed, it goes against my innate proclivities and disposition—to not have such an audience think my writing to be an overcompensation, when the bar is set so incredibly low for what does compensate.

I'd imagine in an attempt to appear intelligent

To whom and what for? Tell me, how does one distinguish between an intelligent person's natural intelligent behavior, and an unintelligent person's affectation thereof? Presumably, one could identify the idiot's façade of intelligence as an ersatz ploy through its inevitable imperfections and subtle peccadillos—tantamount to how one may go about distinguishing a counterfeit dollar bill from the real deal.


But unlike machinery and ingenuity utilized in the counterfeiting of currency—which can theoretically produce a near-clone of the real currency—human cognition is limited by one's biology and uncontrollably shaped by epigenetic variables. Try as one might, they cannot affect the behavior of one with an IQ of 200 if there own IQ is, say, 75. Because higher intelligence is incomprehensible (and, sadly, mostly unrecognizable) to lower intelligence, at best, the man with the 75 IQ can merely act like what his low intelligence erroneously interprets as the behavior and cognition of the man with the 200 IQ. But the obverse is not true. A smart man can act like a dumb man with extraordinary precision.


Now, with all that said, I've a challenge that should be fun. Locate any of those aforementioned imperfections or errors in my demonstration of my mere attempt at playing smart. If you complete the challenge, you stand to validate your hitherto unsubstantiated claim in quotes above. This is important, because otherwise you stand to look like a contumelious cretin who makes disparaging and baseless accusations as a direct result of an urge to criticize others, but haven't a thing to critique. And therein lies the cause of your hankering to write out multi-paragraph responses just to quibble and moan over trifling and insubstantial details.

or in an attempt to use excessive syllables to cover up the fact that your actual contribution
to the debate has no weight.

So says the man who invades a discussion with tangential drivel and attacks the writing style of a commenter and has completely nothing to add to the topic of that comment.


And as for excessive syllables, I'm wondering if that is another empty contumely from an inconsequential nothing who hasn't a substantive or germane thing to say, and so plucks a ready-made censorious repartee from thin air, conceived with vitriol rather than veracity in mind.


And so have you conducted an analysis and syllable count? What were your findings and how do the data compare to the syllables-to-words ratio of the average post on these forums. What's that you say in an abashed, susurrant murmur!? You have no real data, but just a compilation of low-brow wit? I'm not quite as surprised as intensely as you should be ashamed, in all sincerity.

It's possible to write eloquently and still convey you [sic] ideas to their intended audience in an efficient fashion.

Why? To appease a niggling contrarian and neophyte critic? This isn't my academic prose, but my leisure parlance. I'm not a freshman and you are far from a professor. Nor am I practicing my verbal virtuosity to employ in my dissertation. This is a forum, and a drug forum at that. You take this shit too seriously, man. I know you may think similarly of me, by virtue of my writing style. But I assure you, it's a rather facile and flippant parlance.


I'm a good writer and a veritable logophile and proudly profix sesquipedalian. I've gotten much practice at it, which has made this type of writing as easy for me as I'd presume text speech or ungrammatical abbreviations are for you. Though, the lexically-limited observer must think I have one hand on my keyboard and the other flipping through the pages of a thesaurus. Yes, no one on earth exists with a larger vocabulary than you'd like for them to. It would do a number on the ego, I'd surmise.

And are you seriously comparing your post on a drug harm reduction forum to the philosophical works of Hegel or Kant?

And besmirch the inviolable names of these three great men with an undeserved and profoundly supercilious grandiosity and such incredibly delusional and tasteless narcissism? I wouldn't dare. I'm not being comical, either. Hegel in particular has served as a lodestar and inspiration in my intellectual endeavors ever since I was a 5 foot tall gaucherie cherub with peach fuzz for a beard and a voice that cracked every dozen syllables spoke.


No, my point was not to compare me or the quality and profundity of my writings to those foregoing geniuses. I was trying to express the point that difficult, verbose, discursive, labyrinthine, and multi-syllabic writing liberally salted with obscure, archaic, foreign, or twenty dollar words is not always purposeful obscurantism or an earmark of the pompous author majestically expressing nothing with a veneer of meretricious pansophy and incalculable genius.


Additionally, I had used these philosophers—once again, not to imply they're my equals or coevals; in point of fact, I think it safe to say that, in terms of IQ, I'm at least two standard deviations lower, and in terms of writing proficiency, I am to them as a 3rd grader is to me—because they all wrote in a very dense and near-incomprehensible style, caring not for the simplification of their complex syntax which unlay their yet more complex philosophy for the mercy of any potential reader. And yet still, as any philosophy buff will aver, that abstruse, impenetrable verbiage had profound meaning made manifest when fastidiously parsed by the pensive and careful intelligent reader. In essence, I evoked their names as examples of writers and intellectuals that anyone abreast of literature and particularly philosophical literature would easily see that the following quote of yours is obviously without merit and is not applicable to all or even most written language:

Perhaps, but he doesn't seem to realize that knowing a lot of big words isn't a substitute for knowing how to use those words properly. His post is borderline unreadable.

The implication of the underlined and bold text is, it seems, to be that employing a large vocabulary and difficult syntax impedes your language comprehension, and isn't just "borderline unreadable" for your level of literacy and reading comprehension, but is unequivocally, universally, and objectively "incomprehensible". The meaning of which is essentially that such posts lack substance or real meaning. All this apparently matters for what reason? Because you cannot accept feeling inadequate and unintelligent, and must therefore make it your mission to deride and cut down to size whomever it was that evoked that intellectual inadequacy, per chance?


Using your "reasoning", most of the scientific literature and all of philosophy is poorly written junk with only an illusion of purport and a soupçon of substance.

f you really do get a kick out of antiquated language, excessive verbosity and purple prose, buy a diary or start a blog and write to yours hearts contentment there, but writing that way when you're trying to convey an argument in a discussion (on the internet of all places) is just absurd.

The impertinence and self-importance here are astounding. Save your exhortations for some unctuous, milquetoast sycophant who thinks your ill-constructed balderdash and scornful anti-intellectual opinions are worth more than the toilet paper you wipe your mouth with after speaking them, bantam.

 

[Doldrugs]

If not troll:

Brevity is the soul of wit. Desperately trying to prove how smart you are is just obfuscating whatever points you may or may not be making in your hilariously overwrought posts. People aren't taking you seriously because you're a bad writer, not because you're smarter than everyone else.

If troll:

Nicely done! Very obnoxious.

 

[Solipsis]

Even if there is a crack-dealer on every corner, it is probably a psychological barrier to go buy crack from one rather than getting introduced to it by a close friend (i.e. you). It may or may not stay that way, and probably depends on the level of desperation or enticing morbid fascination.

As long as it is that way, that effectively allows you to control what happens to him even if the ultimate responsibility lies in himself.

It sounds like the addicting, enslaving quality of 'knowing' a drug like crack is familiar to you. So take a step back and ask yourself if it was worth ever having started with it. I doubt you can convince yourself that it is 'worth it' and is sure to remain worth it as long as you live.
Empathize with him, put yourself in his position and protect him from it like you would want to be protected from it.

Ending up as 'the dude who got him into crack' like Sekio says could harm a friendship dearly but that is still nothing compared to the harm it may do to his life. So I think that should only be a secondary motivator and it is a more egoistical one.

Maybe there are alternatives that are by comparison a much more responsible, safe choice... not saying that you ought to start trying other drugs with him, but if that helps a lot to avert all this crack business, perhaps.
Also what kind a guy avoids schedule I / class A drugs like the plague but wants to try crack? Maybe he needs to get a good slap, in a loving way.

 

[Nom de Plume]

If not troll:

Brevity is the soul of wit

But no one is trying to be witty. That's completely irrelevant.

Desperately trying to prove how smart you are is just obfuscating whatever points you may or may not be making in your hilariously overwrought posts.

It really seems to be the opposite: you and others are trying desperately to prove that I'm trying desperately to appear smart.

Explain how the fuck I'm trying to prove I'm smart? Name one time I even claimed to be smart. In fact, name one reason this all even matters and why you feel it necessary to discuss?

I like words. I like learning languages. I like writing for the sake of it. You equate vocab with intelligence. Therefore, you interpret any use of a large vocabulary as an attempt to appear intelligent. That's not my problem. But if it bothers you, I'll keep it up.

 

[bluebellbutterfly]

Interesting that you write that lower intelligence cannot recognise higher intelligence.

The problem with swallowing a thesaurus appears to be a lack of understanding in words utilised to support an argument.


In accordance with others, do agree that you do not want to be the person to introduce a friend to crack.

 

[Nom de Plume]

I wasn't aware that so many people can become so butthurt by having to look a word up in a dictionary.

And I also never knew acting smart was such an egregious sin. If as many people acted smart as there are people who act dumb, Humanity would become a Type 2 civilization overnight.

Edit: I just happened to remember a YouTube video I had seen some time ago. I implore you all to watch it. Pretty please??? It's highly pertinent.

 

[blaster12]

Please nom de plume, can you loose the attitude, it's clear you're not contributing judging the responses the people are giving you in this thread. Calling other people "butthurt" doesn't help your position a whole lot lot either. I'm sad this topic has derailed so much, the OP presented a clear problem and it's disrespectful to turn it into a mess like this.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Please nom de plume, can you loose the attitude, it's clear you're not contributing judging the responses the people are giving you in this thread. Calling other people "butthurt" doesn't help your position a whole lot lot either.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

— Mark Twain​

​

I'm sad this topic has derailed so much, the OP presented a clear problem and it's disrespectful to turn it into a mess like this.

Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Crankinit]

From the amphetamine thread:

I have been using amphetamine (Adderall) for several years—from about 13 years old up until the present time, at the age of 20.

For the last two years, I have been taking, on average, three to six 30 mg tablets per day (ie, 90-180 mg in a 24-hour interval). I never take more than one pill at a time, and I typically wait 2-5 hours before taking another pill.

Even with this daily heavy amphetamine consumption, the worst "psychosis" like symptoms I've ever experienced were perhaps some mild auditory hallucinations (such as a knock on the door or some low, whispered and unintelligible single word or two. Like "bsheh" or "eizmuh" or something equally nonsensical. The imagined whisper is barely audible). I

I also may occasionally experience a mild visual hallucination. These are invariably the same. I see some amorphous, small shadow or shapeless black object (like an insect) moving quickly in my peripheral vision and vanishing rapidly. I know it's just my imagination and probably due to sleep deprivation, and so it never bothers me.

Of all these years however, I have never experienced anything remotely as disturbing and psychotic as what you describe. Please, seek professional psychiatric help as soon as you can. You may actually have developed psychosis or schizophrenia and it may not be the drug at all.

So now we know he's not a troll, just the result of combining a particularly impressive vocabulary, an internet connection and excessive amphetamine use (developing into amphetamine psychosis, by the sound of it).

Funny, he seems perfectly capable of being articulate when describing his speed use and resulting symptoms. A moment of clarity? Or maybe he just wasn't wired at the time.

 

[Crankinit]

I don't understand why a crack user would try to demonize cannabis.

Not everyone who points out that weed isn't a harmless panacea is trying to demonize it.

 

[Mycophile]

Not everyone who points out that weed isn't a harmless panacea is trying to demonize it.

I know that, it wasn't my point.

Nevermind.

 

[Doldrugs]

I'm sorry, I assumed you'd be familiar with the phrase and it's meaning. I'll paraphrase.

If you like words and writing so much, you should try to learn how to write concisely and clearly. That's the well known and widely accepted cornerstone of good writing in any medium. As an aficionado of words and their use I would expect you to appreciate constructive criticism.

As an aside, it's worth pointing out that while there probably exists places where such baroque, meandering prose would be welcome, a message board on harm reduction is one of the worst places for it. Cryptography is a fascinating subject. So is ancient Sumerian. But bluelight isn't a great place to post in secret code or dead languages. And other posters wouldn't be being unreasonable if they expressed incredulity or annoyance at it.

 

[Snakevillon]

Let him try it if he wants to I'd be pissed of I was him and u wouldn't let me try it if he's an adult let him try it man

 

[pbuilder]

So lemme get this straight, he hasn't even done powder coke yet and wants to move up to the big leagues?

I'd say no. Maybe, maybee, if you think he is responsible enough to make decisions on his own, do a small amount of powder coke with him and see how he likes it.

Chances are if he doesn't like ritilin, then he won't like the cut concoction of research chemicals and other shit that is average street "cocaine" these days. And that should steer him off crack...

But no, do not introduce your non stimulant using friend to crack lol

 

[pinpoint]

I wasn't aware that so many people can become so butthurt by having to look a word up in a dictionary.

You're simply a sesquipedalian obfuscator.

 

[RTrain]

Your friend an adult? He can make his own decisions, you only can decide to get it for him if thats the situation. But if he is insisting you do it then who cares, its his damn decision.