> And yet, I've never wtinessed a pro-drug speaker attach the caveat that any given street drug will damage neural architecture in a manner that makes it more d

> And yet, I've never wtinessed a pro-drug speaker attach the caveat that any given street drug will damage neural architecture in a manner that makes it more difficult to function long-term. That's because you can't just make that assumption about every "street drug". I believe Desoxyn is still sometimes prescribed to help overeating disorders by reducing hunger. Most of the danger comes when you abuse them recreationally, taking more than you are supposed to, more often than you are supposed to. According to at least one study, meth can actually be neuroprotective at lower doses [0] - but it can also get extremely neurotoxic at higher doses [1]. Of course, another huge chunk of the danger comes with the fact that when sourcing illegal substances, you're not guaranteed the supply will be pure or even that it will be what you ordered in the first place. Reagent test kits [2] are a very helpful harm-reduction measure here, I just wish that they were cheaper. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25724762/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25724762/ [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870191/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870191/ [2]: https://dancesafe.org/shop/ https://dancesafe.org/shop/ > Nothing is safe that damages neural architecture, at minimum. Almost anything can damage neural architecture. In fact, you can damage it without any "street drugs" at all. Trauma, neglect, bad routine, bad hygiene, bad diet etc. can all cause certain degrees of neurodegeneration. Some people just don't know any better (like me) or are in situations where they can't prevent it (like abuse victims). This is a completely normal and expected side effect of neuroplasticity, and almost all substances (even the ones that doctors prescribe that aren't "street drugs") have the capability to negatively affect cognitive development. There's a reason why the term "maladaptive" exists. IOW, by "safe" I didn't mean that a substance would be unquestionably safe to use. I mean that it would be safe to trust that you are getting a pure and unadulterated product, because production would be regulated just like legal OTC medicines are today. Nothing is perfectly safe, even standing up too fast can be dangerous for some people. Some people even die from rolling out of bed in their sleep. Requiring perfect safety is unrealistic - obviously, usage of each drug has to be considered rationally. Prescriptions are usually how this is done, don't get me wrong! Hell, I even talked to my doctor about magic mushrooms and he said that microdosing psilocybin should be OK for me, even though he's not allowed to prescribe it since pharmacies don't provide it here. YMMV, of course. > In people with true ADHD, meds make them feel more "sober "than without. This sounds like it's almost a No True Scotsman fallacy. Even if "true" ADHD were a thing, a diagnosis of ADHD can still be caused by all sorts of underlying conditions. Someone using stimulants to treat ADHD will still be different than someone who simply doesn't have ADHD and doesn't use stimulants, because stimulants have extra side effects that don't have to do with treating ADHD. You have to weigh the positive effects against the negative effects and only then see if the tradeoff is worth it. There are very few, if any, "miracle drugs". Even drugs that can be miracles, can only work that way under very specific circumstances, for very specific brain chemistries. > reposted without comment Fentanyl will not instantly kill you just from touching an imperceptibly small amount. It is extremely potent, but it's not just going to diffuse through your skin when dry. It can get to you if you accidentally lick it or rub your eye or something afterwards with it still on your hands, but it's not just going to kill you on contact or based on proximity.