What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a couple times a year?
Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol.
The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.
Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol.
The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.
If you're not predisposed to psychosis, can it really do anything besides give you a bad trip? Bad trips are traumatizing and may take a while to work through, psychologically, but it's not permanent damage.
Personally, I had a very bad trip that led me to stop doing drugs and, ultimately, to a lot of very positive changes in my life.
This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad?
I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing".
Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese teetolar who's never touched drugs.
A more flexible approach would see drugs regulated purely based on actual harm coupled with availability of a less harmful analogue (will fentanyl users pick heroin if it's more easily available than fentanyl? If so regulate one much more strictly than the other)
Incidentally that approach might well see tighter regulations on alcohol than several currently illegal drugs.
Well, from the scientific view things are pretty clear.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Psychoactive_dru...
Only politics don't want to move. Because why ask science when you can ask the alcohol and tobacco lobby?
That community has an ongoing bitterness about this double standard.
Usually though, people making this point are not advocating for heroin or meth (although there's a reasonable argument there that the drug is not what does most of the damage in those situations - krokodil is just heroin manufactured with an extremely dirty process. It's perceived as being much worse, but what's "much worse" are the impurities from using gasoline as a solvent.
MDMA and LSD in particular have the advantage of no fast, cheap ways to synthesize at the expense of safety or purity.
Now you can say, well I don’t drink alcohol either, but that’s not the reality of most people.
I'll have a drink occasionally, and (more rarely these days anyway) I'll occasionally have too many drinks. But I won't look at either of those as "well, I didnt do heroin, so that was a good choice".
I tend to look at it just as if I had eaten mcdonalds or taco bell or a tub of ice cream. It's something that I wouldn't do if I really wanted the best for myself (for some definition of best. Obviously everyone will have their own. Maybe your best is exploring your psyche, and damn whatever consequences may or may not come).
You don't need to justify it. Just recognize that you're probably trading off something else in your life for it, and in some cases that tradeoff may be sizable.
In any case, I think the comparative view isn't a great one. It implies that you have to have some kinda vice, and at least you kinda picked a lesser one. My own ideal would be to do very little of any of it, maybe even none. But if I miss that ideal, I don't have to rationalize it away.