4 ms·

If you really want to take some substance, you're still betting your life to get high. If you don't value your own life, why should I?

kerkeslager 2y ago
Because people's lives are inherently valuable.
kstrauser 2y ago
Animals love to get drunk. Ever see those funny National Geographic videos of monkeys and elephants eating over-ripe fruit and then staggering around, clearly wasted? There's a plausible hypothesis that humans invented agriculture so we could have a more stable source of beer. I drank a boatload of caffeine today. I saw a neighbor vape. We have a long history of using naturally occurring and manufactured drugs. The wide majority of living humans consume psychoactive substances regularly. What's objectively different about our drugs versus theirs? Theirs might be more potent, but in my younger days I made up for that in volume of things like alcohol. Abstinence-only education is an abysmal failure regardless of the subject. "Don't get high" is right up there with "don't have sex" on the list of recommendations that almost no one's going to follow.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  It's worth noting that sex causes the release of endorphins, which are basically endogenous morphine (i.e. opioids). So telling people not to get high would technically imply they shouldn't have sex either, since that "afterglow" is technically analogous to an opioid high... (albeit, a minor one) > Animals love to get drunk. Dolphins. I love dolphins. Getting high is a social activity for them, much like nearly everything else. They will pass a pufferfish around the group and take turns huffing the toxin in order to get high. It's adorable~
  - sharpshadow 2y ago
    The human has opioid[1] and cannabinoid[2] receptors. This is a reason we cultivate plants which contain these substances which have an effect. Plant (nature/naturally grown) derived substances are generally better received by the body than the in laboratory synthesised equivalent. In case of these designer drugs we changing and appending the original naturally occurring molecules. It’s similar to what the pharma industry does to be able to sell with exorbitant prices, changing and appending the working molecule to get fresh patents. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      > The human has opioid[1] and cannabinoid[2] receptors. Yes, much of the reason drugs even have an effect is because receptors for them already exist in the body. That's also the reason why they can be so dangerous; normally endogenous signals are regulated by the body, but externally administered substances are often not. Physical dependence is the body's self-regulation trying to compensate for the presence of external substances that it can't downregulate; a sudden lack of the substance may cause withdrawal symptoms as the body takes time to adjust back to normal. These withdrawal symptoms can be fatal (such as in the case of benzodiazepine withdrawal, or indeed opioid withdrawal). Also, external substances can trigger receptors or permutations of receptors that don't naturally occur as frequently, as strongly, or at all, resulting in undesirable or even potentially fatal effects. Small changes even to substances that are normally unproblematic can nonetheless change their effects significantly enough to cause a problem, as illustrated by the submission.
      - sharpshadow 2y ago
        Absolutely that’s why substance abuse is very dangerous. I would even append permanent destruction of receptors to the list.
        LoganDark 2y ago
        Oh, right; I forgot that's also a thing. I try to advocate for the reduction of SSRI use for that reason. It's a known side effect that they can permanently destroy or desensitize serotonin receptors when used for periods that exceed around a year or two (this varies by individual). I wouldn't even go that far, personally, but some people's doctors do not know about that effect of SSRIs and keep prescribing them for five years or more, in which case I usually take it upon myself to educate the person directly if their doctor does not know. I don't tell them to stop taking it immediately or anything, just that they might want to watch how long they stay on it. (Side note: I don't know what's so special about prescribers when most of them don't even fully understand the substances they're prescribing. It's possible that fully educating myself about what I'm doing might actually have been better than having blindly accepted a prescription for it, at least in some hypothetical future where this stuff can even be prescribed at all. I guess some people associate illegality automatically with immorality/irresponsibility.)
  - konfusinomicon 2y ago
    Cetacean nitrous... sounds like a party to me!
LoganDark 2y ago
I don't need to prove myself to anyone, but just for the record, I don't get high off this stuff. I use it to treat my ADHD. If you don't know what I'm talking about or how that is possible, please don't accuse me of chasing a high and not valuing my own life. You don't know what I am chasing (it is executive function). The fact that there's relatively little professional research into the substance should mean that you can't know how dangerous it is or isn't; you should know not to jump to conclusions. Academic papers about the effects of psilocybin are slowly starting to trickle out of clinical trials, but there's still much as of yet unexplored.
- chriscappuccio 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    Why do you say so?
- glotzerhotze 2y ago
  I heard that argument before. Legitimizing one‘s own drug abuse for „medical reasons“ to make it socially acceptable. Everyone is on some kind of spectrum and both people I had arguments with about your point of view - are both dead now thanks to overdosing. I think the medical profession has a reason to exist and I‘d rather see people using professionals to treat their conditions than self-experimenting with possible fatal substances.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    You don't know the definition of drug abuse if that's what you think this is. I do agree that the medical profession has a reason to exist, and I would very much prefer to receive this treatment from a doctor, but doctors are not currently allowed to prescribe it; even psilocybin (where legal) can only be administered under professional supervision, and is currently approved only for psychedelic therapy, not for ADHD treatment. There's a lot we don't understand about these substances, but I have overwhelming evidence from experience that what it does for me is something that helps. I'm sorry to hear about the overdoses.

kerkeslager 2y ago

Because people's lives are inherently valuable.

kstrauser 2y ago

Animals love to get drunk. Ever see those funny National Geographic videos of monkeys and elephants eating over-ripe fruit and then staggering around, clearly wasted? There's a plausible hypothesis that humans invented agriculture so we could have a more stable source of beer. I drank a boatload of caffeine today. I saw a neighbor vape. We have a long history of using naturally occurring and manufactured drugs. The wide majority of living humans consume psychoactive substances regularly. What's objectively different about our drugs versus theirs? Theirs might be more potent, but in my younger days I made up for that in volume of things like alcohol. Abstinence-only education is an abysmal failure regardless of the subject. "Don't get high" is right up there with "don't have sex" on the list of recommendations that almost no one's going to follow.

LoganDark 2y ago
It's worth noting that sex causes the release of endorphins, which are basically endogenous morphine (i.e. opioids). So telling people not to get high would technically imply they shouldn't have sex either, since that "afterglow" is technically analogous to an opioid high... (albeit, a minor one) > Animals love to get drunk. Dolphins. I love dolphins. Getting high is a social activity for them, much like nearly everything else. They will pass a pufferfish around the group and take turns huffing the toxin in order to get high. It's adorable~
- sharpshadow 2y ago
  The human has opioid[1] and cannabinoid[2] receptors. This is a reason we cultivate plants which contain these substances which have an effect. Plant (nature/naturally grown) derived substances are generally better received by the body than the in laboratory synthesised equivalent. In case of these designer drugs we changing and appending the original naturally occurring molecules. It’s similar to what the pharma industry does to be able to sell with exorbitant prices, changing and appending the working molecule to get fresh patents. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    > The human has opioid[1] and cannabinoid[2] receptors. Yes, much of the reason drugs even have an effect is because receptors for them already exist in the body. That's also the reason why they can be so dangerous; normally endogenous signals are regulated by the body, but externally administered substances are often not. Physical dependence is the body's self-regulation trying to compensate for the presence of external substances that it can't downregulate; a sudden lack of the substance may cause withdrawal symptoms as the body takes time to adjust back to normal. These withdrawal symptoms can be fatal (such as in the case of benzodiazepine withdrawal, or indeed opioid withdrawal). Also, external substances can trigger receptors or permutations of receptors that don't naturally occur as frequently, as strongly, or at all, resulting in undesirable or even potentially fatal effects. Small changes even to substances that are normally unproblematic can nonetheless change their effects significantly enough to cause a problem, as illustrated by the submission.
    - sharpshadow 2y ago
      Absolutely that’s why substance abuse is very dangerous. I would even append permanent destruction of receptors to the list.
      - LoganDark 2y ago
        Oh, right; I forgot that's also a thing. I try to advocate for the reduction of SSRI use for that reason. It's a known side effect that they can permanently destroy or desensitize serotonin receptors when used for periods that exceed around a year or two (this varies by individual). I wouldn't even go that far, personally, but some people's doctors do not know about that effect of SSRIs and keep prescribing them for five years or more, in which case I usually take it upon myself to educate the person directly if their doctor does not know. I don't tell them to stop taking it immediately or anything, just that they might want to watch how long they stay on it. (Side note: I don't know what's so special about prescribers when most of them don't even fully understand the substances they're prescribing. It's possible that fully educating myself about what I'm doing might actually have been better than having blindly accepted a prescription for it, at least in some hypothetical future where this stuff can even be prescribed at all. I guess some people associate illegality automatically with immorality/irresponsibility.)
- konfusinomicon 2y ago
  Cetacean nitrous... sounds like a party to me!

LoganDark 2y ago

I don't need to prove myself to anyone, but just for the record, I don't get high off this stuff. I use it to treat my ADHD. If you don't know what I'm talking about or how that is possible, please don't accuse me of chasing a high and not valuing my own life. You don't know what I am chasing (it is executive function). The fact that there's relatively little professional research into the substance should mean that you can't know how dangerous it is or isn't; you should know not to jump to conclusions. Academic papers about the effects of psilocybin are slowly starting to trickle out of clinical trials, but there's still much as of yet unexplored.

chriscappuccio 2y ago
[flagged]
- LoganDark 2y ago
  Why do you say so?
glotzerhotze 2y ago
I heard that argument before. Legitimizing one‘s own drug abuse for „medical reasons“ to make it socially acceptable. Everyone is on some kind of spectrum and both people I had arguments with about your point of view - are both dead now thanks to overdosing. I think the medical profession has a reason to exist and I‘d rather see people using professionals to treat their conditions than self-experimenting with possible fatal substances.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  You don't know the definition of drug abuse if that's what you think this is. I do agree that the medical profession has a reason to exist, and I would very much prefer to receive this treatment from a doctor, but doctors are not currently allowed to prescribe it; even psilocybin (where legal) can only be administered under professional supervision, and is currently approved only for psychedelic therapy, not for ADHD treatment. There's a lot we don't understand about these substances, but I have overwhelming evidence from experience that what it does for me is something that helps. I'm sorry to hear about the overdoses.