Which drugs should a drug naive person try?

[SpiralusSancti]

I think mdma is safer then amphetamines but I wouldn’t recommend either of those things to a drug naive person.

How? If used responsibly amphetamine is safer than MDMA in just about any aspect.

As for OPs question. I’ll quote God – “Give me a person and I’ll find a suitable drug for person in question.”

 

[unodelacosa]

I see your point what I really meant was things like "If I shoot up I'll quit bc then I will know I'm a junkie" When I shot up the first time is was like a whole new world opened up to me. Or something like "I'll never steal or lie about my drug use." Rules like that are broken so easily. For me I set up a bunch of boundaries and then when I crossed one I would think "That wasn't a hard rule, I'm still good."

That's why I think it's often a bad idea—if understandable—to set hard and fast "rules" on oneself. For example, I used to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. One day apropos of nothing, I stopped smoking. I told no one, and it took about two weeks before my girlfriend noticed. And still now I don't smoke regularly, but I will occasionally have a cigarette here or there, especially if I'm on MDMA or the rare occasion I drink liquor. I don't say, "I quit smoking". My point is: this worked out better for me than what I've witnessed others do where announce they've "quit smoking" and later regret while they hide their smoking out of shame. I try to avoid "absolutes", words like "never" and "always".

I really don't think that benzos and opiates should be on a newbies "bucket list". Maybe smoke weed or drop acid. Leave the more addictive stuff alone if you can.

Maybe it's a bad idea to delineate and restrict certain drugs. It creates a hyper-appealing "forbidden fruit" situation for many people. It entices certain ppl to desire that drug while condemning it and indirectly placing shame on its users. Also, who's to say who is a newbie and who's not?

And I am pro drugs but I still wouldn't recommend heroin but I deffo think psychedelic s are harmless and Good for mankind

There's nothing wrong with using diacetylmorphine so long as one avoids tolerance, thus avoiding dependency. I personally think morphine derivatives and opioids in general are highly overrated as recreational substances, and I do not enjoy constipation and somnolence, so I use them sparingly when needed. However, I support the right for people who understand drug safety to use them—or any drug—in a responsible manner. That's why we have to teach the young the whole truth. The more we know, the safer we can be. The approach of keeping people in the dark doesn't work and often backfires – and I'm referring here to both harm reduction techniques and direct experiential knowledge of the effects of drugs. Attempting to keep people ignorant is dangerous and has historically failed.

 

[unodelacosa]

I would argue the most responsible use would be no use.

I know that this sounds clever, especially with the admittedly clever word play: the best use is no use. It kinda mirrors: "The best defense is a good offense." Kinda. The format is like: "the best X is YX." However, philosophically this is illogical. "No use" is by definition not use, and therefore cannot qualify to be the most responsible use. It's a moot point. We're discussing the user who is dead on using. I would rather people not use opioids recreationally, but it's not up to me to pick and choose which drugs are okay and which drugs aren't for other people. I can do this for myself only, lead by example, and spread accurate info about harm reduction, though, and that's much better than being on the side of prohibitionists who push Draconian legislation that unnecessarily ruins many people's lives.

No risk of overdose, addiction, etc.

Uh huh. Just like we should simply encourage teenagers to never have sex. No risk of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and no abortion issues, either. It'll be just like the 1950s again! Because all of that really worked so well. </sarcasm>

Sorry about the sarcasm, but we need to deal with reality and not discuss these kind of ideals as if they're some sort of reality we can achieve. But that's just my $0.02 anyway.

Harm reduction, as I understand it, is for encouraging safe use if you were going to do it anyway

Of COURSE I'm talking about the "if" condition under which someone's "going to do it anyway".

The real answer to the question stated here, "which drugs should a drug naive person try?" depends on what is meant by "drug naive". If it means the person is uneducated to any particular drug they would consider trying, then the answer is: none of them. The user should be educated before using the drug for reasons which should be obvious. If however "drug naive" means the person is educated about the drug but has no experience with it, then perhaps some of the softer drugs, obviously, are the best starting place. Sometimes diving into a psychedelic with an immersive experience can be an amazing time, but it really all depends on set and setting and just how naive the person is.

EDIT: sorry, I thought it was implicit/assumed that the person was going to use drugs either way. Recreational drug use is completely optional. It's not for everyone, and clearly some people should avoid using drugs, but not all people and not all drugs. To everyone who thinks "we all know where drugs lead you", that's a reductive, straw man argument and an unhelpful, mostly inaccurate stereotype. People also ruin their lives with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, reckless promiscuity, eating disorders, unchecked depression, unchecked PTSD, lack of caution, falling asleep behind the wheel, etc. All of these things, except the last one, are, and should be, legal. Just bc some people fuck up at these activities does not mean everyone will. One person falls asleep behind the wheel does not mean we should outlaw cars, driving, possession of automobile paraphernalia, conspiracy to distribute pre-owned vehicles no money down until next year, etc.

 

[tussive]

I don't know think there's any one universal answer for what drug should people try.. But if we're just making a list of options for drug naive people to choose from, maybe something like.

Opium, 6-APB, ketamine, amphetamine, 4-HO-MET. That seems like a reasonable list imo.

 

[VerbalTruist]

Maybe it's a bad idea to delineate and restrict certain drugs. It creates a hyper-appealing "forbidden fruit" situation for many people. It entices certain ppl to desire that drug while condemning it and indirectly placing shame on its users. Also, who's to say who is a newbie and who's not?

If you want to argue, let’s argue. I’m an addict with pretty solid recovery. I’m not putting a stigma on them and saying that they are universally bad. I’m saying that they shouldn’t be on a person’s bucket list due to the potential for addiction. In fact, let me be clear as I can be here: If I could go back in time and NEVER smoke weed and started drinking later, not have uncontrolled access to a medicine cabinet that was VERY well stocked, I would.

If I was given the choice between never having used a drug and having the experience I have. I would trade all of the amazing experiences I have had on psychedelics and dissociatives and opiates and all of the others, for none of them. To not have to battle with substance abuse and the knowing what kind of pain, destruction, misery my drug use has caused myself and others… To not have to have had 14 people who I counted as good friends die from: suicide, overdose, and a freak negative reaction… That kind of grief doesn’t go away. I think about those people nearly everyday. I couldn’t celebrate Halloween in a meaningful way for a decade because my best friend died on Halloween due to drug use.

Also, who's to say who is a newbie and who's not?

I’m not saying you’re a newbie. But it certainly seems like this was aimed at drug naive individuals or drug curious individuals. For those people my response would be like some of the others have said. Turn around and walk away.

If we’re talking bucket lists for drug users that list is very different. What’s your age and experience level out of curiosity? Unless you give us some context about you and your experience, you’re going to get a lot of the “Just don’t.” From people because we’ve seen the harm.

 

[unodelacosa]

If you want to argue, let’s argue.

No not really. The only point I'm making is that's reductive to say "the only good use is no use," plus it's not syntactically logical. Beyond coming across a bit dismissive, it's a non-sequitur. It's like saying the best golfers are those who refuse to play golf. Obviously, that's not true. One has to play golf in order to be considered a golfer, just like one has to use drugs responsibly to be a responsible drug user, by definition. Forgive me if it comes across pedantic; it's more of an OCD for me. I debated not saying anything, but commented anyway.

I’m an addict with pretty solid recovery. I’m not putting a stigma on them and saying that they are universally bad. I’m saying that they shouldn’t be on a person’s bucket list due to the potential for addiction.

Ok, you can have that opinion; I'm not stopping you. And we can agree to disagree, because what goes on one's bucket list is up to them. I'd rather not dictate what other people should or shouldn't fantasize about in their pursuit of happiness. But that's just me.

In fact, let me be clear as I can be here: If I could go back in time and NEVER smoke weed and started drinking later, not have uncontrolled access to a medicine cabinet that was VERY well stocked, I would.

That's fine. It seems it's much better if a person starts drugs later after their formative years. For example at what age someone begins smoking cigarettes impacts how hard it will be for that person to quit later. I figure this is likely true of other substances as well. Truly, I'm sorry you've dealt with drug abuse problems. It's no wonder you feel how you feel about them.

If I was given the choice between never having used a drug and having the experience I have. I would trade all of the amazing experiences I have had on psychedelics and dissociatives and opiates and all of the others, for none of them. To not have to battle with substance abuse and the knowing what kind of pain, destruction, misery my drug use has caused myself and others… To not have to have had 14 people who I counted as good friends die from: suicide, overdose, and a freak negative reaction… That kind of grief doesn’t go away. I think about those people nearly everyday. I couldn’t celebrate Halloween in a meaningful way for a decade because my best friend died on Halloween due to drug use.

Yeah that's tragic. I've also lost a lot of friends to suicide, depression, fentanyl, mental illness, car accidents… I myself was nearly killed in 2019 while in the back of an Uber on the highway when we were hit by a drunk driver from behind, put us into the wall and flipped the Toyota Corolla we were in three times before it landed upright. Broke my nose, had lacerations all over, but I survived it. Life is dangerous and vexing. Pain is inevitable, both emotional pain and the physical sort. Boredom is a painful mental disease. Drugs can cure these things with little to no side effects if they're used as directed and only by adults. Parenting is a serious responsibility and too many people just traipse into it willy nilly.

I’m not saying you’re a newbie.

I'm pretty sure you incorrectly suspected it though. I was actually an avid Hive Bee back in the-hive.ws days, and before this I was on the usenet group alt.drugs.chemistry. I've been to countless Phish shows and old school raves in the late 90s / early 2000s. I've laid my own blotter before. I've synthesized meth via three different methods, plus "I've seen the exorcist about 167 times and it keeps getting funnier… every time I see it! Not to mention the fact you're talking to a dead guy. So what do you think? You think I'm qualified?"

But it certainly seems like this was aimed at drug naive individuals or drug curious individuals.

I agree; it clearly was.

For those people my response would be like some of the others have said. Turn around and walk away.

That's fine. Not everyone's comfortable explaining harm reduction in depth and giving practical advice on how to use recreational drugs in as safe a manner as possible while acknowledging that there will always be some risks involved, but this is also true of pharmaceutical drugs and medication a doctor has prescribed. Sometimes tragedy happens, as you well know. In order to do a proper risk assessment, one needs to know the risks. I think it's fundamentally better to educate each other (truthfully!) than it is to allow ignorance to persist. Turning around and walking away is a missed opportunity. Encouraging people to "just say no" is pure propaganda. It encourages people not to think for themselves, not to even consider the possibility, and to eschew using their own critical analysis. Instead it seeks to program people to respond reflexively the way Ronald and Nancy Reagan wanted us to.

Someone let you use drugs at far too early of an age, it sounds like. Maybe you had a bad childhood, maybe it was bad parenting or just sheer poor luck that you had access to psychotropic drugs when you were too young to use them. This can easily lead to PTSD. And I get it; it's tempting to want to apply your individual experience to everyone else, projecting that pessimism and the association you have with drugs now. Similarly, I have to check myself from doing the same thing in reverse, i.e.: assuming that drugs don't have to be problematic for anyone since they're not problematic for me, and I try to watch becoming overly optimistic. Everyone is seeing the world through their own set of tinted glasses, you know.

If we’re talking bucket lists for drug users that list is very different. What’s your age and experience level out of curiosity? Unless you give us some context about you and your experience, you’re going to get a lot of the “Just don’t.” From people because we’ve seen the harm.

I'm in my 40s and I'm extremely experienced, and this is no exaggeration. I've also manufactured a number of drugs including MDMA, MDA, and methamphetamine. I served time for it, and I've got a gigantic list of drugs I've used, like many here. A quick glance through my posts or my reddit profile (PM me for my handle if interested) should be enough to see I'm not some bullshit and I'm not talking out of my ass. Ever think of cutting ppl the benefit of the doubt?

 

[VerbalTruist]

Not everyone's comfortable explaining harm reduction in depth and giving practical advice on how to use recreational drugs in as safe a manner as possible while acknowledging that there will always be some risks involved

That actually got me laughing. So, thanks for that. Also, got me to stop reading except for the end. If you want to send me your Reddit username, go for it. Have a good night.

 

[unodelacosa]

That actually got me laughing. So, thanks for that. Also, got me to stop reading except for the end. If you want to send me your Reddit username, go for it. Have a good night.

Oh ok. I see how it's gonna be. Just dismiss me then. That seems really fair what with your "Administrator" title. Scoff at my comments, reply that you don't care and that you didn't read what I wrote. Great job. Way to treat an avid volunteer contributor to the site. That sense of satisfaction, be treated with a snarky attitude, that's what I do this for, right there, @VerbalTruist. Glad to know the people at the top really appreciate my contributions.

As always, those who are opposed to drugs have either never done them, or they really sucked at using them. The rest of us had a good time.

I'm not gonna keep banging my head against the wall. You've evidently decided you think you know me and have me all figured out and you're clearly too stubborn to admit when there is a valid counterargument, so I'm just gonna drop this here and hope we can move on.

I guess some people will always believe "drugs are bad" and that certain drugs are too addicting to everyone, no exceptions, and that NO ONE should be allowed to use drugs recreationally no matter what.

Others of us believe in individual freedom, civil rights, body autonomy, the human right to explore our own minds, bodies, and "innerspace", and the rightful desire to avoid a govt. surveillance nanny state. And even if we disagree, I'll still read any message directly addressed to me from you sheerly out of respect. It would be nice if you would consider returning said respect instead of dismissing me like I'm some jerk.

EDIT: I even quoted Beetlejuice, for chrissakes. How about slowing your role and not massively shitting on me? I'd think an Admin might take the highroad and not get so bent-out-of-shape if a valuable, active and contributing site user disagrees with them. Your drug experiences are not the end-all, be-all, nor do they give you special qualifications or knowledge not attainable by others. Believe it or not, there are other intelligent people on here and though their opinions may differ from yours, that does not invalidate them. Remember: those who want respect, give respect.

EDIT 2: It occurs to me you're taking offense to that line because you're probably misinterpreting it. "Not everyone's comfortable explaining harm reduction" is a simple statement of fact. I don't know you well enough to assume whether you are or are not one of these people, so don't read into it. Some people don't want to be responsible for introducing drugs to someone who later develops problems with them. I've had this experience, more than once, and it is an awful feeling. It certainly has given me pause to reflect on these things, and ultimately I've learned to use careful discretion whenever introducing a new substance to someone I know. The implications that I'm drug naive, ignorant, and/or foolish when it comes to drugs is specifically frustrating to me b/c I've dedicated so much of my time, energy, thoughts, and efforts over the last quarter century to exploring, learning about, using and sharing psychoactive compounds and knowledge about them with others. If the war on drugs were an actual war, I would be a decorated, multi-star General war hero with a Purple Heart Award, a Medal of Bravery and a Medal of Honor for having been shot down and surviving as a POW in federal prison, serving the better half of the early 00's in the Feds.

These among other things are the reasons I'm adamantly opposed to drug prohibition – b/c drugs laws are more damaging to many individuals than the drugs are. I don't blame people who abuse drugs for this – they need to get help. I blame anyone who wants to continue heaping criminality on what is otherwise often a medical issue. It's like locking someone up for being diabetic.

 

[Mjäll]

U guys need drugs

 

[unodelacosa]

U guys need drugs

No, all I'm asking for is enough respect from a site admin that I'm not just wholly dismissed without my words being read, and then being told this was so and that said Admin was laughing at me in a show of pure disrespect on a public forum. Poor form. I expected better, and again: I should lower my expectations clearly. It really bothers me when this sorta shit happens and it kills my enthusiasm for the site. And that sucks b/c I otherwise enjoy Bluelight. Sad that an Admin is this shitty to me to the point of making me question my willingness to contribute here.

And yes, I can feel everyone getting uncomfortable. I apologize to everyone else cringing along reading this, but I really don't like being talked to like a chump by a site admin, or anybody with a smug sense of entitlement and self-righteousness commonly found in cops and treatment traffickers from the drug rehabilitation-industrial complex.

 

[Mjäll]

I understand, but i think your conversation is an escalating disagreement stemming from a rather small and basically non-contentious difference in perspective. This could be cured with drugs. You both have mature and diplomatic stances to me.

But i may be wrong.

 

[unodelacosa]

I understand, but i think your conversation is an escalating disagreement stemming from a rather small and basically non-contentious difference in perspective. This could be cured with drugs. You both have mature and diplomatic stances to me.

But i may be wrong.

I've already stated that we can agree to disagree. My issue isn't that any longer. My issue is I don't like being disrespected, belittled, and dismissed by a site admin for no good reason except they got angry when they discovered I'm not the newbie they thought they had me pinned for earlier.

But odds are you're right @Mjäll and I think I'm gonna go smoke some weed now, maybe some DMT and just cool out, smoke it off, and stop caring so much about this site. Remind myself that I cannot please everyone, some ppl just won't like me, get me, hear me out, or understand me, and that's ok. I'm not here for them. I'm here for those who connect with me, who listen to me and understand that I'm listening right back. You know, people with manners.

 

[elgoucho9]

How? If used responsibly amphetamine is safer than MDMA in just about any aspect.

As for OPs question. I’ll quote God – “Give me a person and I’ll find a suitable drug for person in question.”

Mdma isn't addictive though and doesn't lend itself to multiple redoses/days awake.

For a drug naive person the obvious choices would be weed, LSD, DMT, drugs that aren't likely to cause any harm or addictions.

I would put addiction as the number 1 risk to anyone who is naive. Thus drugs like cocaine, heroin, Amphetamine, to be the most dangerous.

 

[Juniper Bruhmomentius]

Shadys mom, well if you want Aids and the rest go on

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Mdma isn't addictive though and doesn't lend itself to multiple redoses/days awake.

For a drug naive person the obvious choices would be weed, LSD, DMT, drugs that aren't likely to cause any harm or addictions.

I would put addiction as the number 1 risk to anyone who is naive. Thus drugs like cocaine, heroin, Amphetamine, to be the most dangerous.

That’s why I said if used responsible. Also doing a lot of amphs (and that’s not uncommon among different classes of people where I am) results in, er, catastrophic outcome in a lot less cases than with folks overdoing MDMA.

Even my personal experience and experience of a quite few people I know is like that. 6 months of pretty much daily dosing of amphetamine and just stopping caused basically no WDs or noticeable consequences while few months of doing MDMA once a week did feel a lot more damaging.

I also never heard someone wanting to commit suicide after few days or even weeks of HC amph use but sure as hell did with reckless use of MDMA.

MDMA being neurotoxic is also a problem. Sure if someone will drop it and take it only ever 3 months, sure, that’s improve life of most people (as did mine) but as soon as HR guidelines are not followed many will suffer seriously. Amphetamines are also a lot more forgiving in combos, like with booz, and sadly MDMA + booze is done more often than MDMA + water in many places I partied.

 

[polarthedog]

I understand, but i think your conversation is an escalating disagreement stemming from a rather small and basically non-contentious difference in perspective. This could be cured with drugs. You both have mature and diplomatic stances to me.

But i may be wrong.

yes

 

[polarthedog]

That’s why I said if used responsible. Also doing a lot of amphs (and that’s not uncommon among different classes of people where I am) results in, er, catastrophic outcome in a lot less cases than with folks overdoing MDMA.

Even my personal experience and experience of a quite few people I know is like that. 6 months of pretty much daily dosing of amphetamine and just stopping caused basically no WDs or noticeable consequences while few months of doing MDMA once a week did feel a lot more damaging.

I also never heard someone wanting to commit suicide after few days or even weeks of HC amph use but sure as hell did with reckless use of MDMA.

MDMA being neurotoxic is also a problem. Sure if someone will drop it and take it only ever 3 months, sure, that’s improve life of most people (as did mine) but as soon as HR guidelines are not followed many will suffer seriously. Amphetamines are also a lot more forgiving in combos, like with booz, and sadly MDMA + booze is done more often than MDMA + water in many places I partied.

Agreed, let’s all do some meth

Anyone who doesn’t is stupid

#harm reduction
#gometh

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Agreed, let’s all do some meth

Anyone who doesn’t is stupid

#harm reduction
#gometh

Just in case, I’m not talking about methamphetamine but amphetamine! Meth does have so big addiction potential that indeed we should do a shitload to show by example why drug naive person should try most of the other drugs first xD

 

[polarthedog]

Just in case, I’m not talking about methamphetamine but amphetamine! Meth does have so big addiction potential that indeed we should do a shitload to show by example why drug naive person should try most of the other drugs first xD

I actually agree with you, I was just trying to be funny about it, and ya I guess your right, meth is a lot more neurotoxic. Sucks that it’s not as easy to find adderall as it is meth, I actually like the addy high a lot more. Plus I can fuck on it easier, I get meth dick bad

If schools taught kids about how drugs work, maybe more people would know that mdma isn’t as safe as it’s made out to be, fuck just look up mdma LTC stories

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Thought so, just wanted to be sure

I had meth only a few times and amphetamines countless times so verdict for me with this is hard. Had a really great sex on meth and high is definitely, well, more HC. But I’m pretty glad meth ain’t really a thing here (sadly it seems it’s becoming and media got hard on when that scary drug was busted in one city, it’s first somewhat significant bust of meth here, at least that I know of) as reading experiences on BL and also knowing few ex users IRL makes me think that high ain’t worth the damage. In a city where meth has some tradition, judges gave a lot harsher penalties for meth than any drug even there’s no real legal reason for that but they figured out it’s doing way more harm to their community than even heroin does.