It seems most people want clear yes or no ideas about something being toxic...
I agree that addiction / habituation is one of the greatest risks, because the associated abuse / overusage really makes the toxicity-related risks into real chances of detriment, whereas one-time use in a life makes any toxic potential extremely hard to see / evaluate and appreciate for what it is.
Interesting if neither drug is neurotoxic at limited doses, but I think that very limited (other types of) damage that the body can easily repair after one single use should not let you underestimate toxic potential. So you should probably not read any of that as: they are only toxic when abused.
In that same vein, I think it is incorrect to say that a "glass of wine a day keeps the doctor away", strictly speaking. There is ethanol in each type of alcoholic drink, with the exact same health risks. Compounds like resveratrol (sp) present in wine being good for the cardiovascular system cannot be balanced against harmful effects of alcohol. It is very confusing to draw conclusions like that adding up good and bad together.
In an example taking it to the extreme: if you ingest a lot of toxic compounds and a lot of compounds with health benefits you do not have the same odds as a wholly abstinent person... you open yourself up to extra odds on both sides of the spectrum. Wildcards!
[Granted, some substances do counteract toxic actions of other substances.]
I myself am at some level disappointed that I ever felt any need / compelling reason to take / keep taking narcotic drugs. I don't really want to expose myself to the risks if I could have easily done without it all (note: I am not saying it is easy to come off em!). And actually for quite a number of drugs including cigarettes I quit for that exact rational reason. Coming from the feeling that what you get out of it is in the end hollow and not really worth it, if you are a person with boundary issues and/or addictive personality.
On the other side, some drug experiences (from psychedelics most of all) help me so much on a spiritual level that (while I am sure I could have lived without it), find to have exceptional value. I wouldn't have wanted to miss that for the world. But here also, there are wild odds of things going wrong, mentally or experientially. You can read about psychosis or HPPD all the time, even if I think psychedelics on the whole have good odds. It is of course the mission of BL to inform people and try to prevent harm...
But if you don't want to run risks, never use any drug cause you open yourself up to odds, some of which wild.
When trying to decide whether to start trying drugs, I recommend not taking it lightly and not stepping into it based on some gut feeling or 'why the hell not' moment... but to err on the side of caution when considering your own discipline and ability to take responsibility...
And that if you must use, do so in moderation and plan your moments of use selectively... otherwise, the poorly considered use may prove to ruin to good side of it (e.g. I find smoking weed to be great if you keep it to something like once a month... all kinds of tolerance you experience otherwise can quickly ruin the cost/benefit calculations).
Most of anything perhaps, really take an extra careful look when it comes to 'self-medication'. When you see that happening, don't sit around and wait for it to all get worse... but get professional help to see if you can substitute your own solutions with more sustainable and responsible ones.
Unfortunately most people overestimate themselves from their individualistic ideas of being unique and special. You probably are in some sense! But most likely not when it comes to matters like craving drugs that are very biological.
Few people learn that before the fact, and instead do so via the experimental trial and error drug use phase or worse yet, the (much) later phases.
Be careful and don't oversimplify risk management. "Thinking fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman is a great book showing how absolutely terrible people are at calculating risk and statistics involved, and also how terrible we are at seeing that inability.
I agree that addiction / habituation is one of the greatest risks, because the associated abuse / overusage really makes the toxicity-related risks into real chances of detriment, whereas one-time use in a life makes any toxic potential extremely hard to see / evaluate and appreciate for what it is.
Interesting if neither drug is neurotoxic at limited doses, but I think that very limited (other types of) damage that the body can easily repair after one single use should not let you underestimate toxic potential. So you should probably not read any of that as: they are only toxic when abused.
In that same vein, I think it is incorrect to say that a "glass of wine a day keeps the doctor away", strictly speaking. There is ethanol in each type of alcoholic drink, with the exact same health risks. Compounds like resveratrol (sp) present in wine being good for the cardiovascular system cannot be balanced against harmful effects of alcohol. It is very confusing to draw conclusions like that adding up good and bad together.
In an example taking it to the extreme: if you ingest a lot of toxic compounds and a lot of compounds with health benefits you do not have the same odds as a wholly abstinent person... you open yourself up to extra odds on both sides of the spectrum. Wildcards!
[Granted, some substances do counteract toxic actions of other substances.]
I myself am at some level disappointed that I ever felt any need / compelling reason to take / keep taking narcotic drugs. I don't really want to expose myself to the risks if I could have easily done without it all (note: I am not saying it is easy to come off em!). And actually for quite a number of drugs including cigarettes I quit for that exact rational reason. Coming from the feeling that what you get out of it is in the end hollow and not really worth it, if you are a person with boundary issues and/or addictive personality.
On the other side, some drug experiences (from psychedelics most of all) help me so much on a spiritual level that (while I am sure I could have lived without it), find to have exceptional value. I wouldn't have wanted to miss that for the world. But here also, there are wild odds of things going wrong, mentally or experientially. You can read about psychosis or HPPD all the time, even if I think psychedelics on the whole have good odds. It is of course the mission of BL to inform people and try to prevent harm...
But if you don't want to run risks, never use any drug cause you open yourself up to odds, some of which wild.
When trying to decide whether to start trying drugs, I recommend not taking it lightly and not stepping into it based on some gut feeling or 'why the hell not' moment... but to err on the side of caution when considering your own discipline and ability to take responsibility...
And that if you must use, do so in moderation and plan your moments of use selectively... otherwise, the poorly considered use may prove to ruin to good side of it (e.g. I find smoking weed to be great if you keep it to something like once a month... all kinds of tolerance you experience otherwise can quickly ruin the cost/benefit calculations).
Most of anything perhaps, really take an extra careful look when it comes to 'self-medication'. When you see that happening, don't sit around and wait for it to all get worse... but get professional help to see if you can substitute your own solutions with more sustainable and responsible ones.
Unfortunately most people overestimate themselves from their individualistic ideas of being unique and special. You probably are in some sense! But most likely not when it comes to matters like craving drugs that are very biological.
Few people learn that before the fact, and instead do so via the experimental trial and error drug use phase or worse yet, the (much) later phases.
Be careful and don't oversimplify risk management. "Thinking fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman is a great book showing how absolutely terrible people are at calculating risk and statistics involved, and also how terrible we are at seeing that inability.
Last edited:
.