Druggies are impossible to argue with, same as alcoholics. To compare antidepressants with insulin is preposterous. Like comparing nicotine with marijuana.
The main question is - does the drug alter your mind? Does it affect (correct/heal in equivocal manipulative language) your personality? If yes, you should recognize you're under the influence, you're not yourself, you're DUI, DWI (replace the D with appropriate action).
Everybody suffers from some mental conditions at one point or another, or constantly to a certain degree. EVERYBODY. The fact some are weaker than others is just that - they are weaker mentally. But then it's true about physical characteristics. Only imbeciles start pumping themselves with steroids to try to match somebody who naturally is stronger. The normies take their condition and adapt it to their lives.
Anyway, I don't mean to fix or correct anybody. Just saying my piece.
Actually, nicotine and MJ do have similar psychotropic effects, albeit one is considerably weaker.
Did you when Raleigh met the Amerindians, the locals had two variants? One, tobacco rusticus, had a stronger psychedelic effect, and low addictiveness. the other, far less commonly smoked for obvious reasons, had lower psychedelic effect but considerably higher addictiveness?
Take one guess which one the English ruling classes brought back for sale.
But a simple test of this is to grab a vape, and high - 18 or 24+ strength liquid, and take some really big lungfuls. You'll be tripping, and not in a nice way.
ALL drugs affect personality, as your personality also includes your physical state.
"Everybody suffers from some mental conditions at one point or another, or constantly to a certain degree. EVERYBODY."
Yes.
"The fact some are weaker than others is just that - they are weaker mentally."
Define "weaker"? Some may be more vulnerable to some experiences, and yet will brush other experiences of with a shrug, that would destroy a person barely affected by the former. People can have weak moments, when something they would normally shrug off hurts them greatly. And vice versa.
Everyone can be helped through those experiences, so they become integrated, dealt with, and the individual becomes stronger.
An alcoholic from childhood abuse may be the bravest person in a crowd in certain situations.
It really doesn't help to see some as 'weaker', and some as 'stronger'. those are far too rigid definitions. Especially where chemicals are concerned.
Physically, it may be simpler, but even there, in moments of stress I've seen physically weak people do extraordinary things, and physically strong people back off and hide.
Human beings are extraordinarily complex creatures, not to be shoved into boxes.
Everyone would benefit from meditation, just as they would daily physical exercises. A muscle trained is a stronger muscle.
Drugs can be a useful tool in many psychological areas, microdosing shrooms has shown to reduce depression in EVERYONE, with little to no side-effects.
As Terrance McKenna argued, we evolved alongside psychedelic drugs, they are a part of our heritage. We may not even be sane without them. Needless to say, misuse can push us in the opposite direction too.
"nicotine and MJ do have similar psychotropic effects" - have you heard of a cop writing a ticket to somebody for having smoked too many cigarettes?
Of course nicotine has an effect. It's stimulating, clarifying, whatever. But it doesn't impair you or change your personality. You still are who you are.
"Define "weaker"" - in terms of how people overcome those moments.
And once again - I do not slight people for being weak, everyone is at some points to some degree. I am though for people to be honest about it and not make excuses for submitting to drugs and claiming it's normal. It's not. If you can't handle yourself without drugs or alcohol - fine, but admit it. That's all.
I can assure you that tobacco changes your personality. It may not impair certain abilities - such as driving - as much as say LSD, or whiskey, nonetheless a smoker - ie, an addict - has a marked change in personality from the drug.
The same is also true of coffee, and to a lesser extent tea. There are some people who should not be behind a wheel after drinking coffee - or on withdrawal from coffee.
The only difference really is that these are 'socially acceptable' drugs, not that they do not have significant changes to mood and behaviour.
In places where pot has been socially acceptable also for generations, people would look at you for being weird for claiming it was dangerous, or harmful, in moderate doses. Ever talked to a hardcore Muslim about alcohol, and heard how deranged they are about even one mouthful of beer? Well, that's how it'd comes across in those societies.
I don't think societies should be limiting people's choices, certainly not through coercion and threats of extreme violence, such as "Imprisonment"; at the same time, I agree that individuals must also take the full consequences of their actions, and not try to claim "The drug made me do it". No, that's BS. I've been drunk many, many times, but I've never even remotely tried to rape someone. That's not the alcohol, that's YOU, buddy.
But this distinction between 'drugs', and 'drug-free' is largely false. Historically, it comes down to whether the item could be controlled and taxed by and for elites. When you look at it biochemically, you find it gets a great deal more complicated. Look up the effects of processed sugar on the nervous system, fx. If you think that's funny, try giving up ALL products with sugar in for 3 months. You'll find all the symptoms of drug addiction as you go through that, if you know what they are.
"Just one little bit won't hurt..." - just as any old heroin addict who can't quit.
Obviously, these 'natural' - or more natural - drugs are not in the same league as the manufactured utterly synthetics of Big Harma. Opium is a millionth less harmful and addictive than the Big Harma synthetic opioids. Even so, opium destroyed an entire civilisation under British gunboats to force entry.
People have been killed due to caffeine withdrawal. And nicotine withdrawal. Especially nicotine withdrawal.
Ultimately, "You are what you eat", or more generally, imbibe. It ALL affects your mood, behaviour, psychology, consciousness. I cut out meat for two years in my late 20s - I was a different person in important respects.
What I'm getting at here, badly, and longwindedly, is that generally the distinction of "drugs" is entirely synthetic itself. It is socially subjective - to some extent.
Every single person on this planet, is addicted to SOMETHING. Be it meat, sugar, salt, heroin, dope, alcohol, tobacco, or their phones (But that's another topic).
Pointing fingers of superiority at others is ignoring our own problems, which we only admit in secret to ourselves in the dead of night.
We're all addicts. Every single one of us. Addiction is part of the Human Experience.
I'm cool with that, and maybe you are too.
But I'd like the pill-pushing "psychiatrists" to simply call themselves the more honest "Dealers".
Druggies are impossible to argue with, same as alcoholics. To compare antidepressants with insulin is preposterous. Like comparing nicotine with marijuana.
The main question is - does the drug alter your mind? Does it affect (correct/heal in equivocal manipulative language) your personality? If yes, you should recognize you're under the influence, you're not yourself, you're DUI, DWI (replace the D with appropriate action).
Everybody suffers from some mental conditions at one point or another, or constantly to a certain degree. EVERYBODY. The fact some are weaker than others is just that - they are weaker mentally. But then it's true about physical characteristics. Only imbeciles start pumping themselves with steroids to try to match somebody who naturally is stronger. The normies take their condition and adapt it to their lives.
Anyway, I don't mean to fix or correct anybody. Just saying my piece.
Actually, nicotine and MJ do have similar psychotropic effects, albeit one is considerably weaker.
Did you when Raleigh met the Amerindians, the locals had two variants? One, tobacco rusticus, had a stronger psychedelic effect, and low addictiveness. the other, far less commonly smoked for obvious reasons, had lower psychedelic effect but considerably higher addictiveness?
Take one guess which one the English ruling classes brought back for sale.
But a simple test of this is to grab a vape, and high - 18 or 24+ strength liquid, and take some really big lungfuls. You'll be tripping, and not in a nice way.
ALL drugs affect personality, as your personality also includes your physical state.
"Everybody suffers from some mental conditions at one point or another, or constantly to a certain degree. EVERYBODY."
Yes.
"The fact some are weaker than others is just that - they are weaker mentally."
Define "weaker"? Some may be more vulnerable to some experiences, and yet will brush other experiences of with a shrug, that would destroy a person barely affected by the former. People can have weak moments, when something they would normally shrug off hurts them greatly. And vice versa.
Everyone can be helped through those experiences, so they become integrated, dealt with, and the individual becomes stronger.
An alcoholic from childhood abuse may be the bravest person in a crowd in certain situations.
It really doesn't help to see some as 'weaker', and some as 'stronger'. those are far too rigid definitions. Especially where chemicals are concerned.
Physically, it may be simpler, but even there, in moments of stress I've seen physically weak people do extraordinary things, and physically strong people back off and hide.
Human beings are extraordinarily complex creatures, not to be shoved into boxes.
Everyone would benefit from meditation, just as they would daily physical exercises. A muscle trained is a stronger muscle.
Drugs can be a useful tool in many psychological areas, microdosing shrooms has shown to reduce depression in EVERYONE, with little to no side-effects.
As Terrance McKenna argued, we evolved alongside psychedelic drugs, they are a part of our heritage. We may not even be sane without them. Needless to say, misuse can push us in the opposite direction too.
"nicotine and MJ do have similar psychotropic effects" - have you heard of a cop writing a ticket to somebody for having smoked too many cigarettes?
Of course nicotine has an effect. It's stimulating, clarifying, whatever. But it doesn't impair you or change your personality. You still are who you are.
"Define "weaker"" - in terms of how people overcome those moments.
And once again - I do not slight people for being weak, everyone is at some points to some degree. I am though for people to be honest about it and not make excuses for submitting to drugs and claiming it's normal. It's not. If you can't handle yourself without drugs or alcohol - fine, but admit it. That's all.
I can assure you that tobacco changes your personality. It may not impair certain abilities - such as driving - as much as say LSD, or whiskey, nonetheless a smoker - ie, an addict - has a marked change in personality from the drug.
The same is also true of coffee, and to a lesser extent tea. There are some people who should not be behind a wheel after drinking coffee - or on withdrawal from coffee.
The only difference really is that these are 'socially acceptable' drugs, not that they do not have significant changes to mood and behaviour.
In places where pot has been socially acceptable also for generations, people would look at you for being weird for claiming it was dangerous, or harmful, in moderate doses. Ever talked to a hardcore Muslim about alcohol, and heard how deranged they are about even one mouthful of beer? Well, that's how it'd comes across in those societies.
I don't think societies should be limiting people's choices, certainly not through coercion and threats of extreme violence, such as "Imprisonment"; at the same time, I agree that individuals must also take the full consequences of their actions, and not try to claim "The drug made me do it". No, that's BS. I've been drunk many, many times, but I've never even remotely tried to rape someone. That's not the alcohol, that's YOU, buddy.
But this distinction between 'drugs', and 'drug-free' is largely false. Historically, it comes down to whether the item could be controlled and taxed by and for elites. When you look at it biochemically, you find it gets a great deal more complicated. Look up the effects of processed sugar on the nervous system, fx. If you think that's funny, try giving up ALL products with sugar in for 3 months. You'll find all the symptoms of drug addiction as you go through that, if you know what they are.
"Just one little bit won't hurt..." - just as any old heroin addict who can't quit.
Obviously, these 'natural' - or more natural - drugs are not in the same league as the manufactured utterly synthetics of Big Harma. Opium is a millionth less harmful and addictive than the Big Harma synthetic opioids. Even so, opium destroyed an entire civilisation under British gunboats to force entry.
People have been killed due to caffeine withdrawal. And nicotine withdrawal. Especially nicotine withdrawal.
Ultimately, "You are what you eat", or more generally, imbibe. It ALL affects your mood, behaviour, psychology, consciousness. I cut out meat for two years in my late 20s - I was a different person in important respects.
What I'm getting at here, badly, and longwindedly, is that generally the distinction of "drugs" is entirely synthetic itself. It is socially subjective - to some extent.
Every single person on this planet, is addicted to SOMETHING. Be it meat, sugar, salt, heroin, dope, alcohol, tobacco, or their phones (But that's another topic).
Pointing fingers of superiority at others is ignoring our own problems, which we only admit in secret to ourselves in the dead of night.
We're all addicts. Every single one of us. Addiction is part of the Human Experience.
I'm cool with that, and maybe you are too.
But I'd like the pill-pushing "psychiatrists" to simply call themselves the more honest "Dealers".