3 ms·

I don't want to make presumptions about your experience so I'll try to speak broadly, and if this contradicts your experience I'd be happy to have you expand my

by Timpy 6y ago

I don't want to make presumptions about your experience so I'll try to speak broadly, and if this contradicts your experience I'd be happy to have you expand my view. I think there's two categories of drugs and it's harmful to ignore the distinction. I don't know enough about the specifics of all drugs to nail down the definitions precisely but a description will suffice. One category is "psychedelic", the other is opiate. Marijuana is a federal schedule 1 drug in the US, right next to heroin. If we don't train society to differentiate between these two then unsuspecting young people who experiment with marijuana illicitly will say "all those warnings were over something harmless. I'll try heroin next." The war on drugs is perpetuating weed as a gateway to more dangerous drugs. The THC and psilocybin family has its risks in the same way that alcohol and nicotine have their risks; the opiate and methamphetamine family should not be confused or taken lightly by anybody.

yostrovs 6y ago
I've seen normal, rational people, even one science PhD, turn to talking gibberish when discussing the world after lsd and mushrooms. The PhD no longer believes in the fundamentals of science or basics of microbiology that he studied. Also, try to talk to a Rasta and figure out what he really believes aside of abstractions.
- Timpy 6y ago
  If you mean they fried their brain then sure, that's bad and that's definitely one of the risks. But if it's just the Steve Jobs style "I see the world differently now" then to me it seems okay for the PhD to realign their goals because their values have changed. Of course, you can make the same argument that a heroin addicts values have changed, but the LSD isn't going to make you rob your family for your next hit.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Had a CEO that had a grand vision of abstractions. 3 years and no one could figure out what on earth his vision was. But he was very passionate about it. Was a really nice guy, seemed fully functional, yet he completely sank his business from whatever he was taking.
- rthomas6 6y ago
  What kind of gibberish? What did he say?
  - yostrovs 6y ago
    He believed in every conspiracy theory, including political and medical. That aliens built the pyramids, that kind of stuff. Normally this kind of stuff comes from a different kind of person.
rootsudo 6y ago
You did not mention anything at all about "narcotic." While, you write that you don't want to make assumptions, it sounds like you are already set in thinking there is just two issues. There is much more than just the black and white world you created with "psychedelic" and "opiate."
- Timpy 6y ago
  I said I didn't want to make presumptions specifically about the parent post's personal situation. I do not think there are only two issues. I did say the categories are hard to define. First paragraph of Wikipedia's Narcotic entry: "In the United States, it has since become associated with opiates and opioids, commonly morphine and heroin...". If you would give my point some charity, I think narcotics could fall into the broader opiate category I was talking about. Perhaps there is a better word for this category, I don't care what we call it, but the distinction is worth making that the drugs in these separate categories are dangerous is unlike ways. Every drug is a different issue. Widespread LSD use would cause a change in society, widespread heroin use would cause a collapse in society.

by Timpy 6y ago

yostrovs 6y ago

I've seen normal, rational people, even one science PhD, turn to talking gibberish when discussing the world after lsd and mushrooms. The PhD no longer believes in the fundamentals of science or basics of microbiology that he studied. Also, try to talk to a Rasta and figure out what he really believes aside of abstractions.

Timpy 6y ago
If you mean they fried their brain then sure, that's bad and that's definitely one of the risks. But if it's just the Steve Jobs style "I see the world differently now" then to me it seems okay for the PhD to realign their goals because their values have changed. Of course, you can make the same argument that a heroin addicts values have changed, but the LSD isn't going to make you rob your family for your next hit.
treeman79 6y ago
Had a CEO that had a grand vision of abstractions. 3 years and no one could figure out what on earth his vision was. But he was very passionate about it. Was a really nice guy, seemed fully functional, yet he completely sank his business from whatever he was taking.
rthomas6 6y ago
What kind of gibberish? What did he say?
- yostrovs 6y ago
  He believed in every conspiracy theory, including political and medical. That aliens built the pyramids, that kind of stuff. Normally this kind of stuff comes from a different kind of person.

rootsudo 6y ago

You did not mention anything at all about "narcotic." While, you write that you don't want to make assumptions, it sounds like you are already set in thinking there is just two issues. There is much more than just the black and white world you created with "psychedelic" and "opiate."

Timpy 6y ago
I said I didn't want to make presumptions specifically about the parent post's personal situation. I do not think there are only two issues. I did say the categories are hard to define. First paragraph of Wikipedia's Narcotic entry: "In the United States, it has since become associated with opiates and opioids, commonly morphine and heroin...". If you would give my point some charity, I think narcotics could fall into the broader opiate category I was talking about. Perhaps there is a better word for this category, I don't care what we call it, but the distinction is worth making that the drugs in these separate categories are dangerous is unlike ways. Every drug is a different issue. Widespread LSD use would cause a change in society, widespread heroin use would cause a collapse in society.