Nothin quite like a dose of moral superiority.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
I've had 2 DMT sessions, and I've had Zero cravings for cannabis.
- Thread starter unisonruss1285
- Start date
GTRm8
huh
Keep going, mate. You can do this bro. Don't listen to people who try to demoralize you or derail you from your path to a better self. You can be truly happy only if you're free of any addictions. When you're happy, you don't need drugs like cannabis, alcohol, or nicotine anymore because you're self-sufficient. The first year of being clean is the hardest; then you get used to it, and your body secretes endogenic happiness hormones. Don't forget to get good sleep before midnight, eat healthy food, avoid junk food, and take vitamins and minerals. Focus on fresh, unprocessed foods, fruits, vegetables, and ensure you have enough protein every day.
Drug - Wikipedia
Dude you kinda got your head up your own ass. YOU are the one demoralizing people.
I haven't disagreed with that. I'm trying to contribute to shaping a normative linguistic usage that has been shaped by propaganda. The current use wasn't always the prevailing one, and needn't keep being one. At least not on the Nexus, where we are supposed to exert some critical thought.
If you believe that, psychedelics are "a drug" and make you "a loser". That is what most people think. But you seem to want to set them apart. Do you defend following current normative use or not? In current normative use, they're not "a sacrament" but a dangerous, illegal (same thing in normative use) drug.
You're applying a double standard here. Either throw away the prevailing framework of "a drug is a bad substance" or adhere to it and accept that your "sacraments" are "drugs" and make you "a loser".
My point is exactly that when the word "drug" is used to cast moral judgement, it's always used at the convenience of the speaker. To you psychedelics aren't drugs, to others cannabis isn't, and yet to others oxycodone is obviously not because a doctor blessed it. I believe we can move past that.
That's a strawman, so I'm not going to address it.
I would appreciate if we could leave ad-hominem out of these discussions. Please don't psychoanalize me, presuppose my motives, or patronize me. You deserve your arguments to be considered and not some projections about how I believe you to be, and I think the same applies to me. If you don't want to do it to have a respectful and productive conversation, do it at least to avoid embarrassing yourself: Experiential Differences RE: DMT w/THC vs. Without
I rarely smoke cannabis and don't particularly find it productive or enjoy it. But my arguments would be worth the same if I smoked weed twenty times daily.
Then let's do away with the propaganda instead of selectively applying it to what we personally don't like or understand.
GTRm8
huh
Are you serious about linking me to the propaganda machine called Wikipedia? Thanks, I have brains to think.Drug - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
LOL. How so? By supporting them and telling them the truth?
Last edited:
Yeah sorry. My bad. I think everyone was just trying to help you backtrack and see the hole your digging yourself into. I guess I should back off and let you do your thing.
GTRm8
huh
I'm trying to help the OP. I don't mind you talking your opinions.
What point are you trying to make if you only stick to your own definition of things, instead of engaging with how others understand it? Calling people or groups “losers” is stigmatizing and does not contribute to constructive discussion. At the same time, you appear unwilling to actually engage in the debate.
Hiding behind semantics is not a constructive approach.
Your handle refers to the Nexus motto “learn, share and expand.” In this case, the “learn and expand” part seems to be missing, because several people are trying to explain how your words come across. Whether or not you want to be “right,” this is important feedback to consider.
Finally I want to draw your attention to the attitude page. The way you are speaking here does not align with the expected tone of this forum. Abbreviations like the one you used do not belong here.
doubledog
Titanium Teammate
I have similar experience, tryptamines helped me immensely with my cannabis addiction in the past and allowed me to use cannabis much more productively.
Btw. Interesting semantic discussion, mainly because some members use the word "drug" very similarly as it is used in my native language, which quite differs from common English use/meaning, at least in my understanding.
Btw. Interesting semantic discussion, mainly because some members use the word "drug" very similarly as it is used in my native language, which quite differs from common English use/meaning, at least in my understanding.
Panpsychic
Titanium Teammate
There are several strands of normative linguistic useage which you ignore, but apparently are jumping at this point about cannabis.
As I said before, why have you never called out tea drinkers as 'drug users'? Your line of reasoning leads there, which is why it is flawed. Normative linguistic usage is always separate from technical categorization.
If you are not calling for tea drinking to be commonly called a form of 'drug use' then you are also endorsing some distinction thats not pertaining to technical classification as per normative usage.
No, such black or white thinking is not necessary. I can adhere to the standard definitions without losing communicative clarity.
I have called psychedelics 'sacred drugs' but I can also accept people not classifying them as 'drugs' at all with all the negative associations.
I would generally agree, but as I mention you are being selective in your criticism of this.
Classifying use of addictive habit forming substances under a generally negative 'propensity for drug abuse' rubrik is valid, as distinct from non habit forming psychedelics. I am aware there are exceptions like ketamine, but this is an exception that proves the rule not otherwise.
Heroine addiction is seen as a negative pretty much universally whereas as someone on morphine for pain management isn't. I think you can see the distinction and where it comes from.
This isn't an invalid ad hominum at all, since its pertaining to the thread topic which relates to a personal relinquishing of cannabis use, therefore the current usage of people in the discussion is valid as to seeing where they are coming from. If it had no relation to the topic at hand then your criticism may be valid. A willingness to be open about how your individual use may be shaping your views on it is helpful. I have seen however that from your other post your views on cannabis use are broadly aligned with mine so we can agree we are disagreeing on the linguistic side.
Can you share more about this distinction? Thanks
Because I'm not "calling out" anyone as anything, my point is to stop using the term "drug" as a pejorative, so if it's not a pejorative there's no point in calling out anyone for anything related to it.
Tea is definitely a drug, and I do consider caffeine a drug. Mild in its effects, but with real physical addiction potential. I've been through it several times, in fact. Even if it had no addiction potential, it would still be a drug. My point is precisely and once again to not use "drug" as a kind of slur.
You say:
And yet:
That's not standard at all, socially speaking. That's convenient to you. Once again: this all can be avoided by removing the subjective element once we stop using it as a way to attack or reject that which we dislike.
It is. Where I come from has no weight in how solid or weak my arguments are. You don't know if I'm actually addicted and just pretending here to be how I would like to be, or if I have personally beat up weed dealers. It doesn't and shouldn't matter. It would matter if I were making a moral argument about cannabis use, but I'm not.
Do you think if I started making assumptions about you it would be helpful to promote clarity and move the discussion in a productive direction?
I'm talking about the use of the word "drug" as a label for the ill and subjectively defined category of "psychoactive substances I don't like", which varies from person to person. It's a category that has no place in serious discussion about drugs and we should just get rid of. Talk about actual effects, risks, etc. instead of "good" or "bad".
Last edited:
What a heated new moon debate it became. That is why I deliberately use the term medicine for any drug that I myself experienced as such.
It is easier for people to understand what I mean, and they usually ask if they do not.
Paraphrasing Dennis McKenna, I think: neurotransmitters are drugs, so everyone is holding
It is easier for people to understand what I mean, and they usually ask if they do not.
Paraphrasing Dennis McKenna, I think: neurotransmitters are drugs, so everyone is holding
unisonruss1285
Established member
I think there can still be room in my life for cannabis sometimes. But there has been a huge shift.
As for the discussion at hand ...the term drug definitely has a negative connotation. It reminds me of the old D.A.R.E program when I was a kid. The truth is, the research has advanced...the miracles that these molecules can create are endless. Let's not look at these tools as drugs. There's no point. I would consider DMT and mushrooms natural medicine, since it's natural.
As for the other person, I've never felt like a loser
Or let's look at drugs as tools. There are some tools that almost nobody uses and few would know how to without hurting themselves. That doesn't make them not tools. I'm against pretending that one's preferences or personal judgements are part of the nature of any substance.
That's a fine use. There are also synthetic medicines, including many psychedelics. And medicines that few people would have any reason or ability to handle. But that doesn't make them not medicines.
It's easy to pretend that one's preferences are actually facts about reality itself, but it's a dangerous path. It's the path that led to the current legal status of some tools that here we all agree can be very useful and beneficial if properly handled (and destructive if misused).
My broader point is not even about the word drugs, but about renouncing the easy pleasure of condemning whole categories of tools that one dislikes, fears, or otherwise rejects, together everyone that uses them. That is not an attitude that befits the Nexus.
Last edited:
doubledog
Titanium Teammate
Imo it's always better to explain your personal use or meaning behind the words "drug" or "medicine" or any similar. Or use some neutral term as "substance" or "plant".
Mixing technical and moral meanings together causes misunderstanding.
Edit: In my native language, drug means basically "a substance, use of which is morally inferior and socially not accepted".
Mixing technical and moral meanings together causes misunderstanding.
Edit: In my native language, drug means basically "a substance, use of which is morally inferior and socially not accepted".
unisonruss1285
Established member
It's plant medicine. And over time, it will be looked at in that way by the majority. Hopefully 
İn my language the word translated to English as "drug" is absolutely a negative term.
İn my personal vocabulary, a drug is anything that is done habitually unconsciously, and all such things bring more unconsciousness and various negative effects to one's life. A drug is by no means restricted to substances. TV, sex, food, anything can be a drug.
Oftentimes, the same thing that can be a drug can be a medicine when used consciously, and vice versa.
But I understand that the word "drug" actually covers two concepts in English, one as I explained above, the other anything psychoactive or even bioactive and thus neutral (no negative connotations).
But when speaking about the negative concept, I find it important to make it clear that nothing by itself is a "drug." Our use or our relationship to it makes it a drug or a medicine.
İn my personal vocabulary, a drug is anything that is done habitually unconsciously, and all such things bring more unconsciousness and various negative effects to one's life. A drug is by no means restricted to substances. TV, sex, food, anything can be a drug.
Oftentimes, the same thing that can be a drug can be a medicine when used consciously, and vice versa.
But I understand that the word "drug" actually covers two concepts in English, one as I explained above, the other anything psychoactive or even bioactive and thus neutral (no negative connotations).
But when speaking about the negative concept, I find it important to make it clear that nothing by itself is a "drug." Our use or our relationship to it makes it a drug or a medicine.
Last edited:
I've been thinking about it. The word is not that important at all. The idea of a category of inherently "bad" substances is the problem. That's why I don't recognize the pejorative use of "drug" as belonging in a serious conversation: it's not as much about the word itself but about the pejorative part. If we invented a new word for those "bad substances", the problem would remain.
Yes, exactly this. I have no qualms about calling that "drug" even if it's not my preferred choice of words. But the point there is about the patterns and reasons for use, not the substance itself.
My problem is with saying "of course these GOOD substances are better than the BAD substances, and we are better than the BAD people (losers!) that use them". In this case, this was done through the argument "psychedelics aren't drugs", with "drugs" meaning BAD. No matter what words are used to convey that idea, I'm against that.
Yes, exactly this. I have no qualms about calling that "drug" even if it's not my preferred choice of words. But the point there is about the patterns and reasons for use, not the substance itself.
My problem is with saying "of course these GOOD substances are better than the BAD substances, and we are better than the BAD people (losers!) that use them". In this case, this was done through the argument "psychedelics aren't drugs", with "drugs" meaning BAD. No matter what words are used to convey that idea, I'm against that.
Last edited:
Psychedelics can be (and are) drugs (negative) for many people, without a doubt.
I would say there is no clear cut categorization with psychedelics in most cases. They can be partly drug, partly medicine.
I would say there is no clear cut categorization with psychedelics in most cases. They can be partly drug, partly medicine.
Last edited: