2 ms·

Addiction should not be a factor in judging which drugs are harmful and which are not. If a drug intoxicates you, then it is bad.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
Love is very intoxicating.
LocalH 3y ago
This type of reductionist, binary thinking is not productive. Especially since there is no single standard for "intoxication". Case in point - I have smoked cannabis for close to thirty years at this point. I was also diagnosed with ADD (now usually referred to as ADHD) at the age of eight. Cannabis doesn't really intoxicate me at all at normal, common doses when smoked. If anything, it increases my focus control and helps me stay alert, especially with a strain that tends to have more THC than CBD. However, I also personally know people who could take two hits from the exact same weed and be completely out of it. When the range of effects are so wide, how can you even begin to have an objective standard? Either you set the threshold too low, and people like me are considered legally "intoxicated" despite the additional alertness, or you set the threshold too high and you have people who are not considered legally "intoxicated" but are out of their mind.
andelink 3y ago
You’re demonstrating absolutely zero critical thinking. Even if we put aside any health benefits (mental or otherwise) of a drug that also can be said to intoxicate you, what is inherently wrong with intoxication?
- nashashmi 3y ago
  > what is inherently wrong with intoxication? Permanent reduction of brain cells? Accidents? Disproductivity? Of course you would try to stretch that effect on to lots of causes. And then argue for the same treatment to those elements. But you got to know that is a logical fallacy.
  - Gud 3y ago
    A drug that’s intoxicating doesn’t necessarily have those traits. I would argue the opposite, in many cases
  - pantalaimon 3y ago
    How do you conclude that any kind of intoxication leads to a reduction of brain cells? And who wants to be productive 24/7? That just sounds miserable.
  - katdork 3y ago
    neurotoxicity can be a thing (excitatory neurotoxicity too! is also dose dependent.), but that regards research of the substance and so on. these are measurable things. with drug use, harm reduction in the modern era is essential. pushing it away from the legal sphere means that people will not manage to reduce their harm as much. all of this authoritarian shit doesn't stop people from doing things, it just stops them from doing it safely and getting help without being arrested. diet sodas have aspartame which contains phenylalanine which can increase dopamine levels in the brain. in this argument, tea, alcohol, diet soda, everything like that gets illegalized. there's nothing wrong with intoxication, just being irresponsible with it and not reducing the harm you cause or suffer yourself through intoxication. furthermore, amphetamine does the opposite of "lost productivity". so we should make that OTC by this merit? :p everything meaningful is going to contain chemicals including those of a psychoactive nature or a nature that changes biochemistry, nothing will stop being chemicals.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

Love is very intoxicating.

LocalH 3y ago

This type of reductionist, binary thinking is not productive. Especially since there is no single standard for "intoxication". Case in point - I have smoked cannabis for close to thirty years at this point. I was also diagnosed with ADD (now usually referred to as ADHD) at the age of eight. Cannabis doesn't really intoxicate me at all at normal, common doses when smoked. If anything, it increases my focus control and helps me stay alert, especially with a strain that tends to have more THC than CBD. However, I also personally know people who could take two hits from the exact same weed and be completely out of it. When the range of effects are so wide, how can you even begin to have an objective standard? Either you set the threshold too low, and people like me are considered legally "intoxicated" despite the additional alertness, or you set the threshold too high and you have people who are not considered legally "intoxicated" but are out of their mind.

andelink 3y ago

You’re demonstrating absolutely zero critical thinking. Even if we put aside any health benefits (mental or otherwise) of a drug that also can be said to intoxicate you, what is inherently wrong with intoxication?

nashashmi 3y ago
> what is inherently wrong with intoxication? Permanent reduction of brain cells? Accidents? Disproductivity? Of course you would try to stretch that effect on to lots of causes. And then argue for the same treatment to those elements. But you got to know that is a logical fallacy.
- Gud 3y ago
  A drug that’s intoxicating doesn’t necessarily have those traits. I would argue the opposite, in many cases
- pantalaimon 3y ago
  How do you conclude that any kind of intoxication leads to a reduction of brain cells? And who wants to be productive 24/7? That just sounds miserable.
- katdork 3y ago
  neurotoxicity can be a thing (excitatory neurotoxicity too! is also dose dependent.), but that regards research of the substance and so on. these are measurable things. with drug use, harm reduction in the modern era is essential. pushing it away from the legal sphere means that people will not manage to reduce their harm as much. all of this authoritarian shit doesn't stop people from doing things, it just stops them from doing it safely and getting help without being arrested. diet sodas have aspartame which contains phenylalanine which can increase dopamine levels in the brain. in this argument, tea, alcohol, diet soda, everything like that gets illegalized. there's nothing wrong with intoxication, just being irresponsible with it and not reducing the harm you cause or suffer yourself through intoxication. furthermore, amphetamine does the opposite of "lost productivity". so we should make that OTC by this merit? :p everything meaningful is going to contain chemicals including those of a psychoactive nature or a nature that changes biochemistry, nothing will stop being chemicals.