131–135 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone isn’t hurting others?
"This thing is inherently too risky/dangerous to use ... like firing a gun off into the air"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it tho? It's not uncommon to mix weed with herbs, it's called a spliff. Ayahuasca is a combination of substances, would you not consider modern ayahuasca consumption as a drug? Mushrooms are often mixed with lemon juice. Plus what's the point of making the distinction? And you mentioned that people in the past wouldn't snort drugs, and that's false, there's native tribes that would make powder out of seeds and sno…
"Weed" is an "herb". The "drugs" in weed are THC and the cannabinols/oids. > would you not consider modern ayahuasca consumption as a drug From the context of what I wrote, obviously not. In colloquial usage, I would call it a drug, but I was obviously making a distinction here. > Plus what's the point of making the distinction? The context and particularities of what I was saying is the point!!!!!!!!!! Herbs do not…
I see the point better now, but I still think the distinction is misguided. In a clinical context, dosage is more accurate, that's true, but this is not a distinction to be made between "pure molecule" and "herbs" in any other context.
For example if you use a scale for mushrooms, which under this idionsycratic distinction would be more of a "herb" than a "drug" (the drug counterpart being the psilocybin molecule), then dosage would likely be more accurate than a tab of LSD, because you really have no way of knowing how much LSD is in there.
In other words yes, the natural variance and additional components within "natural" drugs exists, but it is not inherent that this variance is significantly more than that of what you can get with synthetic drugs, specially if you consider that there's likely less hands between a person growing a plant/mushroom, and a chemist making something fairly difficult such as LSD.
This is not nitpicking, rather elaborating on the context, and trying to illustrate that the distinction you are making is only really applicable to comparing a clinical to a non-clinical setting, and it's not something inherent to the origin of the molecules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Weed" is an "herb". The "drugs" in weed are THC and the cannabinols/oids. > would you not consider modern ayahuasca consumption as a drug From the context of what I wrote, obviously not. In colloquial usage, I would call it a drug, but I was obviously making a distinction here. > Plus what's the point of making the distinction? The context and particularities of what I was saying is the point!!!!!!!!!! Herbs do not…
So you're basically conflating "drug" = "molecule". I see the point better now, but I still think the distinction is misguided. In a clinical context, dosage is more accurate, that's true, but this is not a distinction to be made between "pure molecule" and "herbs" in any other context. For example if you use a scale for mushrooms, which under this idionsycratic distinction would be more of a "herb" than a "drug" (th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fairly sure cocaine in heavy use is more damaging than alcohol? The cardiotoxicity (especially when paired with alcohol which it always is) combined with the vasoconstriction. Maybe. I find in general drug discourse making these comparisons isn't super helpful. The risk and damage profile of different drugs is very complex. Mdma in frequent use isn't very damaging in one sense, but can really impair cognitive functio…
I agree that comparisons are generally a poor way to go about it but I think the "alcohol is actually really bad" point needs to be mentioned because many people do think it's okay and fine just because it's legal