Which drugs should a drug naive person try?

[thegreenhand]

You really don't think that encouraging responsible use is a more reasonable approach?

I would argue the most responsible use would be no use. No risk of overdose, addiction, etc.

Harm reduction, as I understand it, is for encouraging safe use if you were going to do it anyway

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Introducing a friend to something potentially habit forming is a lot of responsibility.

Therefore, maybe psychedelics (NOT MDMA) if they express an interest, otherwise no. I don't want to be responsible for a loved ones future ket or stim habit.

 

[unodelacosa]

I would argue the most responsible use would be no use. No risk of overdose, addiction, etc.

Harm reduction, as I understand it, is for encouraging safe use if you were going to do it anyway

It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise. That's like not selling condoms to teenagers. It doesn't help the problem, nor make it a good idea just because religious people or whoever don't condone the activity.

The word “abuse” as in drug abuse implies there is a normalising “use” with which to compare “ab-use”, you know, like the prefix “ab” modifying “use”, etymologically meaning “bad use”.

“The most responsible use would be no use” is remarkably flawed logic as use requires, you know, actual use. That's just as empty as the argument “the safest sex is no sex!” Very few people actually live abstinent lives from what I can tell.

Introducing a friend to something potentially habit forming is a lot of responsibility.

Well the responsibility is to also show that person how to use responsibly and taking the time to explain the dangers. After that, there's only so much you can do. But if no one does this—explains harm reduction and responsible drug use to naive/new drug users—then that person is really getting set up for failure by not being informed. That's the crux of this whole site as I understand it—to accept that people will use drugs and for others to explain how to best reduce harms and risks associated with drugs they use.

Therefore, maybe psychedelics if they express an interest otherwise no.

So sometimes people have a latent/dormant psychological disorder like schizophrenia that has yet to kick in for that individual, but for example a powerful LSD trip has been known to set off a traumatizing-enough experience in a person that it brings out the sudden onset of said disorder. I would think this would equally make you feel guilty about your role in that person's mental demise the same way as it would for someone winding up in jail, rehab, or their grave following a drug problem with a substance you suggested once that they try. So by that logic, everyone here who uses drugs but says nothing should be suggested is failing to see the hypocrisy of this perspective. Am I alone on this view?

 

[unodelacosa]

Cite a source or its bullshit

Yeah you got it, champ. Coming right up…

Here ya go:

Adolescent γ-hydroxybutyric acid exposure decreases cortical N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor and impairs spatial learning

Satisfied? Like I'm the first person ever to call GHB a disso…

EDIT (bold mine): “Analyses […] showed that GHB produced dose-related increases in subjective ratings of sedative-like, stimulant-like, positive mood, and dissociative effects, but no changes in psychomotor performance measures or blood pressure.”
That's quoted from Behavioral effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate in humans

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Marijuana/hashish, alcohol, and maybe a low dose of mushrooms or even LSD.

 

[thegreenhand]

It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise. That's like not selling condoms to teenagers. It doesn't help the problem, nor make it a good idea just because religious people or whoever don't condone the activity.

The word “abuse” as in drug abuse implies there is a normalising “use” with which to compare “ab-use”, you know, like the prefix “ab” modifying “use”, etymologically meaning “bad use”.

“The most responsible use would be no use” is remarkably flawed logic as use requires, you know, actual use. That's just as empty as the argument “the safest sex is no sex!” Very few people actually live abstinent lives from what I can tell.

I’m not anti harm reduction, as you’re implying. I probably wouldn’t volunteer my time to an HR forum if I didn’t believe in it

but the question on the thread title is “which drugs should a drug naive person try?”

is not more likely that a person is harmed by trying drugs than by not taking them?

 

[unodelacosa]

I’m not anti harm reduction, as you’re implying.

No I'm not. I'm implying that because you're not anti harm-reduction, your argument seems contradictory to me.

I probably wouldn’t volunteer my time to an HR forum if I didn’t believe in it

Same. I realize of course you mean as a moderator, but I believe I make worthwhile, up-to-date, relevant contributions to the site's content, and I also don't take pay. It's because I believe people can use drugs responsibly and that there's a difference between use and abuse.

but the question on the thread title is “which drugs should a drug naive person try?”

is not more likely that a person is harmed by trying drugs than by not taking them?

I think it's implied that the drug-naive individual in question already has an interest in trying drugs and hence the question.

I am reminded of Bill Hicks:



EDIT: Meaning to say: drugs have done both good things and bad things. It's important to acknowledge this, I think.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Well the responsibility is to also show that person how to use responsibly and taking the time to explain the dangers.

I have very limited patience for people who refuse to educate themselves when harm reduction information is so readily available. If a friend expressed interest in trying a substance I would point them towards the literature and impress upon them that they should not even think about consuming a drug until they've consumed all the literature they can on it. Beyond that, their own harm reduction is their sole responsibility.

So sometimes people have a latent/dormant psychological disorder like schizophrenia that has yet to kick in for that individual

True. I might give them something to read about that, but to be honest if a friend is asking me for acid I would expect them to already know that.

Perhaps this is just me, but I cannot fathom why somebody would consume a foreign substance without going out of their way to educate themselves on it. I cannot stand adults who expect to be spoon fed potentially life saving information which they should want to seek out themselves.

To be clear, my answer to OPs question is none. A drug naive person should educate themselves before taking drugs. If they are unable or unwilling to do that then they should not take drugs.

 

[Higherfocus420]

That's putting it in some bullshit terms. That's like if I said, Mate, there is a big difference between someone who uses amphetamine now & again and an E-tard who drops MDMA every weekend

That isn't true. There are people in rehab for it, especially in conjunction with abusing other drugs – what rehab people call “cross addicted”. But that shit is all psychological, so you know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To me that boils down to compulsive behavior pattern disorder. Physical dependency is a different matter. Say what you want, but the come down from MDMA sucks shit compared to… well no, actually, coming down from either kinda sucks unless you have a benzo and enough time to sleep…

MDMA works mainly on Serotonin (5-HT), as you pointed out; however, it also affects dopamine and adrenaline, just to a much lesser extent. Furthermore, the psychedelic amphetamines are primarily serotonergic with all of them exhibiting a strong effect on 5-HT2A. So it's inaccurate to say “amphetamines work mainly on dopamine”; some do and some don't. It really just depends on the compound in question… I'm talking about DOM, DOB, DOI, DOC, etc., btw, regarding psychedelic amphetamines. There are entries for each found in PiHKAL by Dr. Alexander Shulgin.

Says who? Let's say I had to be in a car with someone else driving and had to choose between that person being high on MDMA or high on speed (Idk why I would be in that predicament, but humour me for a moment, s'il vous plaît), I would opt for the latter simply because speed is less inebriating than MDMA. If you're talking about the primary amine, amphetamine, you're not crossing into neurotoxic range if you dose sensibly, unlike MDMA which is neurotoxic every single time it's used on account of MAOs converting serotonin into alpha-methyldopamine when it floods into dopamine receptor synapses. (To be fair, I mostly consider this kind of damage to be negligible so long as you don't overdo it with frequency and chasing an MDMA high; after all, drinking booze is also neurotoxic every time…)

Where I live whizz heads are like crack heads they stay up

That's putting it in some bullshit terms. That's like if I said, Mate, there is a big difference between someone who uses amphetamine now & again and an E-tard who drops MDMA every weekend

That isn't true. There are people in rehab for it, especially in conjunction with abusing other drugs – what rehab people call “cross addicted”. But that shit is all psychological, so you know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To me that boils down to compulsive behavior pattern disorder. Physical dependency is a different matter. Say what you want, but the come down from MDMA sucks shit compared to… well no, actually, coming down from either kinda sucks unless you have a benzo and enough time to sleep…

MDMA works mainly on Serotonin (5-HT), as you pointed out; however, it also affects dopamine and adrenaline, just to a much lesser extent. Furthermore, the psychedelic amphetamines are primarily serotonergic with all of them exhibiting a strong effect on 5-HT2A. So it's inaccurate to say “amphetamines work mainly on dopamine”; some do and some don't. It really just depends on the compound in question… I'm talking about DOM, DOB, DOI, DOC, etc., btw, regarding psychedelic amphetamines. There are entries for each found in PiHKAL by Dr. Alexander Shulgin.

Says who? Let's say I had to be in a car with someone else driving and had to choose between that person being high on MDMA or high on speed (Idk why I would be in that predicament, but humour me for a moment, s'il vous plaît), I would opt for the latter simply because speed is less inebriating than MDMA. If you're talking about the primary amine, amphetamine, you're not crossing into neurotoxic range if you dose sensibly, unlike MDMA which is neurotoxic every single time it's used on account of MAOs converting serotonin into alpha-methyldopamine when it floods into dopamine receptor synapses. (To be fair, I mostly consider this kind of damage to be negligible so long as you don't overdo it with frequency and chasing an MDMA high; after all, drinking booze is also neurotoxic every time…)

I don't find mdma addictive not physically and when itsgone I don't crave more and its hard too od on so I think it's a pretty positive drug experience and would advise other than alcohol or heroin and amphetamines in my experience has been really addictive withbad come downs and stimulant psychosis

 

[unodelacosa]

I cannot stand adults who expect to be spoon fed potentially life saving information which they should want to seek out themselves.

I tend to agree with you, but accidents happen. I mean, I understand your angle of lacking patience for people's stupidity and laziness, but that's why patience is a virtue, I suppose.

Obviously, in general no one suggests any vice, as it were, but I would be a liar if I didn't state my opinion that psychoactive drugs—when used properly and as directed—can lead to some powerful insights and reflections, and serve as a very valuable set of tools in modifying cognition.

I don't find mdma addictive not physically and when itsgone I don't crave more and its hard too od on

Yeah so Idk, I'm probably just being uptight about semantics here, but saying a drug “causes addiction” is misleading and unhelpful. It attempts to lay the blame on the inanimate objects we call “drugs”, when in fact the cause is compulsive behavior pattern disorder. In my opinion it's dishonest to blame an object for the actions of a subject.

so I think it's a pretty positive drug experience

Try telling that to someone who lost their teenage child to MDMA use in some form or fashion. We're just arbitrarily choosing which drugs to vilify and which get granted a pass despite displaying the potential for lethality as virtually every chemical in existence does, H₂O included.

and would advise other than alcohol or heroin and amphetamines in my experience has been really addictive withbad come downs and stimulant psychosis

Well yeah if you're one of the unlucky few who are naturally prone to stimulant psychosis it's no wonder you think stimulants are terrible drugs with the obvious and notable exception of MDMA, which btw can also cause stimulant psychosis, just FYI

 

[Higherfocus420]

I tend to agree with you, but accidents happen. I mean, I understand your angle of lacking patience for people's stupidity and laziness, but that's why patience is a virtue, I suppose.

Obviously, in general no one suggests any vice, as it were, but I would be a liar if I didn't state my opinion that psychoactive drugs—when used properly and as directed—can lead to some powerful insights and reflections, and serve as a very valuable set of tools in modifying cognition.

Yeah so Idk, I'm probably just being uptight about semantics here, but saying a drug “causes addiction” is misleading and unhelpful. It attempts to lay the blame on the inanimate objects we call “drugs”, when in fact the cause is compulsive behavior pattern disorder. In my opinion it's dishonest to blame an object for the actions of a subject.

Try telling that to someone who lost their teenage child to MDMA use in some form or fashion. We're just arbitrarily choosing which drugs to vilify and which get granted a pass despite displaying the potential for lethality as virtually every chemical in existence does, H₂O included.

Well yeah if you're one of the unlucky few who are naturally prone to stimulant psychosis it's no wonder you think stimulants are terrible drugs with the obvious and notable exception of MDMA, which btw can also cause stimulant psychosis, just FYI

People who take speed just sit there and watch porn for days it's a dirty drug that rots your teeth and the comedowns are vile and everybody gets stimulant psychosis if their up for long enough and fyi I love stimulant I smoke crack pop pills etc all the time

 

[unodelacosa]

half the people I know from Bluelight are in the Shrine, as well as a number of IRL friends

Statistically speaking then, you're a dangerous person to know…

People who take speed just sit there and watch porn for days

YUP, that's it: the only activity of “people who take speed”. Nailed it. Nothing judgmental and stereotyping about that comment whatsoever, nope.

it's a dirty drug that rots your teeth

From the one talking about smoking crack… like that's a clean drug.

and the comedowns are vile

Again: you smoke crack cocaine by your own admission, so this all strikes me as being pretty hypocritical. I mean, no offense here, but do you hear yourself?

and everybody gets stimulant psychosis if their up for long enough

Probably this is true, but some people go into stimulant psychosis hella fast compared to others.

and fyi I love stimulant

So you say.

I smoke crack pop pills etc all the time

Great. In the meantime I don't judge you for these actions; perhaps try to reserve your harsh judgments of others when you live in such an obvious glass house. You are stereotyping in a manner that is unhelpful to society. As per usual who is against a certain drug? Either someone who has never used that drug or someone who really sucked at using the drug responsibly…

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

I find it really interesting that a lot of people say stuff like LSD and DMT, because no matter how safe they are physically and non-addictive, they are, i.m.o, way, way heavier on a drug-naive mind than say just morphine or Xanax.
Not that I'd recommend opiates or benzos, but heavy psychedelics is something you should work yourself up to. In my humble opinion.

 

[Higherfocus420]

Statistically speaking then, you're a dangerous person to know…


YUP, that's it: the only activity of “people who take speed”. Nailed it. Nothing judgmental and stereotyping about that comment whatsoever, nope.

From the one talking about smoking crack… like that's a clean drug.

Again: you smoke crack cocaine by your own admission, so this all strikes me as being pretty hypocritical. I mean, no offense here, but do you hear yourself?

Probably this is true, but some people go into stimulant psychosis hella fast compared to others.

So you say.

Great. In the meantime I don't judge you for these actions; perhaps try to reserve your harsh judgments of others when you live in such an obvious glass house. You are stereotyping in a manner that is unhelpful to society. As per usual who is against a certain drug? Either someone who has never used that drug or someone who really sucked at using the drug responsibly…

No I can do drugs an admit that some are bad and some I would recommend and some I can say you would be better off not trying

 

[Higherfocus420]

I find it really interesting that a lot of people say stuff like LSD and DMT, because no matter how safe they are physically and non-addictive, they are, i.m.o, way, way heavier on a drug-naive mind than say just morphine or Xanax.
Not that I'd recommend opiates or benzos, but heavy psychedelics is something you should work yourself up to. In my humble opinion.

I never get bad trips and find lsd and shrooms very therapeutic I'm good at guiding my trips tho but I have seen someone have a bad trip

 

[unodelacosa]

No I can do drugs an admit that some are bad and some I would recommend and some I can say you would be better off not trying

No argument there. I'm just urging you (and others) not to stereotype stimulant users, please.

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

I never get bad trips and find lsd and shrooms very therapeutic

Same here. Or, I do have bad trips now and then, but it doesn't wring me inside out.

but I have seen someone have a bad trip

This is what I meant. I've never seen anyone freak out on morphine. But LSD? Shrooms? Way too many. I've seen suicides after single uses of LSD in people who had been on opiates and benzos for years, but one trip made them tie up nooses and pull out razorblades.

I'm not trying to talk down psychedelics. I love them. But I don't think they are harmless - that is a dangerous mantra that is becoming more and more prevalent, I think.

 

[unodelacosa]

Doing a successful and enlightening job of introducing a powerful drug to a new user is a sacred tradition of sorts. Those who do this and do it with aplomb are modern-day shamans in my eyes, and I applaud those who possess the courage to do so.

 

[deficiT]

I think cannabis should be everybody's first drug.

 

[deficiT]

I'm not trying to talk down psychedelics. I love them. But I don't think they are harmless - that is a dangerous mantra that is becoming more and more prevalent, I think

Indeed