... what wouldn't you try?

So okay, obviously it's a bad idea to do stuff that can get you sent away to prison for years at a time, and it's a bad idea to take impure stuff, which it's only reasonable to assume if something's illegal, drug dealers are going to cut it with all sorts of stuff and those impurities are highly likely more harmful than the actual drugs themselves. Just because it's a bad idea doesn't mean people don't do it -- since people take all kinds of illegal drugs even with those risks.

So, hypothetical here, but let's say at some point in the future all drugs are legalized and you could buy stuff from regulated shops instead of sketchy street dealers, so no risk of prison time, and no risk of getting who knows what impure crap. Just straight up whatever it is you want.

So, under those conditions, are there any drugs you absolutely would never try, not even once? After all, one can responsibly use lots of things without becoming addicted and letting it ruin them. Or, hell, there's even drug addicts who manage functional lives. But some stuff is a bit too hardcore even for a single use, ever.

Stuff I would never the hell touch even if it was legal?

- Krokodil (desomorphine) -- aka you have to be batshit insane to even have an inkling of desire to touch the stuff. I prefer not being a walking corpse, thanks! For those unfamiliar with it, just imagine some of the worst gore pictures you've ever seen. And you die within a few years, at best.

- Heroin -- aka hardcore but not quite to krokodil batshit levels. No thanks. I prefer not trying something even once that is known to make people addicted in a single use and significantly reduces your lifespan. Plus I don't much care to be sticking needles in my veins unless it's medically necessary. Also makes people look like complete shit relatively fast. I'm sexy. I'd like to stay sexy.

- PCP -- aka you'll rip your face off and feed pieces to your dogs. Yeah. ... How anyone can think this one is a good idea is .. beyond me. If you want to make yourself extra violent and do things you'll definitely regret later, you'd take this.

- Meth -- aka you'll never sleep and you'll never stop talking and you'll just clean the house all day. Well I hardly sleep anyway but I don't want to just be a completely fidgety mess. Some of the things this can do to your looks are pretty extreme too, although I should note don't believe everything you hear -- there's meth users out there who don't look like "meth users" at all. Some of them have good teeth, smell nice, and are quite attractive, contrary to the stereotypes. Now, that's not saying maybe they'll never look like the stereotypes -- maybe that comes later, but all I know is it's very possible to come across meth heads that don't "look it" at all.

- Crack -- yeah, I'm not a gutter whore. I don't want to look like one either. I don't want to talk like one either. I don't want to be involved with the sorts of people who are involved with them either. No thanks.

It's amazing where people are willing to inject krokodil into their bodies. I read about some girl in Mexico who injected into her nether regions. I think I will leave that to people's imaginations. But seriously that stuff is just nasty. I have heard ingredients of it include gasoline and propane.

At 10/26/15 04:46 AM, NeonSpider wrote: ... what wouldn't you try?

Drugs. Why would I poison myself, lose control and misperceive my surroundings?

At 10/26/15 05:38 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 10/26/15 04:46 AM, NeonSpider wrote: ... what wouldn't you try?

Drugs. Why would I poison myself, lose control and misperceive my surroundings?

Different strokes for different folks. Unless you're straight-edge you probably take drugs anyway, just legal ones like alcohol or nicotine or caffeine.

Maybe it gives an enhanced experience, or maybe a different perspective or some high or something.

If the cost/benefits doesn't seem worth it to you, then obviously you wouldn't. I mean there's some seriously bad stuff out there. I support individual rights, but just because I support maximum personal freedoms (I'm in favor of legalize all drugs for this very reason), doesn't mean I myself would care to try everything under the sun.

Maximize freedom and responsibility. Let people use whatever the hell they want, but also hold them fully accountable to it. Frees up the overcrowded American prisons for only the truly violent offenders. Prison overcrowding is a problem. This could be a solution to that problem. This could also be a solution to economic problems (boosts economy), and gang problems (cuts into their funding and shuts them out of the drugs game if people can get better stuff from more legitimate sources).

And if someone wants to be a dumbass and inject krokodil into their dick, who am I to say they can't? It's not my dick that'll rot and fall off.

There's some stuff I might try, only if it were legal, but yeah I'm not gonna be a dumbass about it. There's stuff no one should ever touch. Even so, let them make that decision for themselves, and suffer the consequences if they take it. And as-is it's pretty stupid to take street drugs anyway, even without the legality aspect, if for no other reason than you don't know what the hell you're actually getting and what it's been cut with.

Benefits of legalize all drugs:
- Crime goes down
- Prison overcrowding problem = solved
- Economy goes up = more jobs + better pay, etc...
- Gangs are significantly weakened
- Drug users are actually *safer* because they're getting purer stuff

Downsides?
- Possibly more people using drugs
- Personal responsibility emphasized, which people don't like but need to accept

So from a strictly costs/benefits perspective, it's looking like legalize is the most logical option.

I think I would just try cannabis, ecstasy, and some of the milder hallucinogenic drugs.

Ohio votes for legalization of weed next week. If it passes, I'm going to give it a try to counter my crippling anxiety and pain.

If everything was legalized, I doubt I'd use any of it other than weed. Most of the other shit, especially the designer drugs have been made simply because Weed, cocaine and opiates are illegal.

Granted, things like cocaine in a natural form has some use. Originally, mountain people chewed the leaves to increase heartbeat for when they went high in altitude.

I know of a few people that would try things like Peyote and LSD but I'm not that adventurous.

I don't think I'd try anything other than d@nk w33d and hash muffin (a.k.a. "Space Cake"), which are possibly the same. And maybe some LSD which I heard a few nice things about. And perhaps some other stuff that isn't addictive from the first use.

Never gonna try Jenkem, though, for obvious reasons

At 10/26/15 04:46 AM, NeonSpider wrote: ... what wouldn't you try?

Nah, i have no interest in drinking or smoking, even less in taking heavier drugs.

idk I would maybe only try weed but I actually hate being high.

It scarred the shit out of me when they put me on laughing gas for my wisdom teeth.

I know it's not the same high but still.

I don't even smoke cigarettes. I'm certainly not gonna be doing anything harder.

Any hard drugs because I have no reason to try them either way.

You guys are dumb.

All painkillers are heroin, all heroin is is a painkiller. I'm not a fan of painkillers because I like to poop and numbness is depressing. Everybody gets perscribed painkillers eventually, but only people who don't know what fun is enjoy them.

Same thing with meth. Adderall and Vyvance are both meth. If you're taking ADHD or antidepressive medication, you're taking meth. Cafeine is just a verson of meth that gives you headache before it gets you high. People in the early days would pop speed like tic tacs. I'm pretty tightly wound, though, so I don't enjoy speed. Still, if you have chronic depression, amphetamines are the way to go. I mean, coca cola is named after the plant cocaine comes from.

As far as hallucinogens are concerned, if you do too much you can get PTSD, but the brain is pretty resilient and you develop a tolerance to hallucinogens very quickly, so they're only fun twice a year, tops.

Most studies on drug addiction show that route of administration (ie, how you take the drugs) is the top factor in determining whether you will get addicted. If you eat pills, you'll be fine, if you snort powder, you're pushing it, and if you smoke or inject you're going to end up a junkie.

Speed is good for depressed people or people who have trouble breathing. Opiates are good for old people (NOT YOUNG PEOPLE) with chronic pain. Hallucinogens are good for crazy people. Every drug in it's place, none used as a crutch or a scapegoat.

It's not the drugs that are bad, it's the mentality that the solution to life's problems could be as simple as the right mixture of dope (there will never be enough dope to fix the world).

At 10/26/15 02:22 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: You guys are dumb.

All painkillers are heroin, all heroin is is a painkiller. I'm not a fan of painkillers because I like to poop and numbness is depressing. Everybody gets perscribed painkillers eventually, but only people who don't know what fun is enjoy them.

All painkillers come from opium, not heroin. All painkillers are not heroin. That's just silly.

Most studies on drug addiction show that route of administration (ie, how you take the drugs) is the top factor in determining whether you will get addicted. If you eat pills, you'll be fine, if you snort powder, you're pushing it, and if you smoke or inject you're going to end up a junkie.

I don't know where you got these studies from, but they were done by imbeciles.
Whether you swallow a pill of oxycontin, break it up and snort it or shoot it, you're still going to end up with an opiate addiction. Doesn't matter how you do it, only matters how long you do it for.

At 10/26/15 02:46 PM, thenoodge wrote: All painkillers come from opium, not heroin. All painkillers are not heroin. That's just silly.

My point is that the many names for opiates are more about marketing and less about accuracy. Opium, Heroin, Morphine, they're all different names for the same thing to make it look safe when it's not. Papaver Somniforum. Laudanum was supposed to be a safe form of opium, morphine was supposed to be a safe form of laudanum, heroin was supposed to be a safe form of morphine, oxycontin was supposed to be a safe form of heroin, but they're all the same, they all work on the same receptors in the brain.

I don't know where you got these studies from, but they were done by imbeciles.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059319/pdf/nihms275698.pdf

Note to self: the National Institute of Health are imbeciles. I get this information from the medical billing I do as a profession, because junkies end up in the hospital a lot and it's a big problem we combat daily.

Whether you swallow a pill of oxycontin, break it up and snort it or shoot it, you're still going to end up with an opiate addiction. Doesn't matter how you do it, only matters how long you do it for.

Nope. Injection usage of any drug makes it hit you way harder and way faster. Some studies suggest that injection itself is addictive, because it creates a sense of being educated and power.

At 10/26/15 03:05 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 10/26/15 02:46 PM, thenoodge wrote: All painkillers come from opium, not heroin. All painkillers are not heroin. That's just silly.

My point is that the many names for opiates are more about marketing and less about accuracy. Opium, Heroin, Morphine, they're all different names for the same thing to make it look safe when it's not. Papaver Somniforum. Laudanum was supposed to be a safe form of opium, morphine was supposed to be a safe form of laudanum, heroin was supposed to be a safe form of morphine, oxycontin was supposed to be a safe form of heroin, but they're all the same, they all work on the same receptors in the brain.

Just because they work on the same receptor in the brain does not make them the same potency.
Morphine is much more powerful and addictive than opium, as heroin is to morphine. SAYING "all painkillers are heroin is a gross misrepresentation.

I don't know where you got these studies from, but they were done by imbeciles.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059319/pdf/nihms275698.pdf

Note to self: the National Institute of Health are imbeciles. I get this information from the medical billing I do as a profession, because junkies end up in the hospital a lot and it's a big problem we combat daily.

Oh, well you're a secretary, so pardon me. You would certainly know all about drug addiction.
My apologies.

Whether you swallow a pill of oxycontin, break it up and snort it or shoot it, you're still going to end up with an opiate addiction. Doesn't matter how you do it, only matters how long you do it for.

Nope. Injection usage of any drug makes it hit you way harder and way faster. Some studies suggest that injection itself is addictive, because it creates a sense of being educated and power.

I can tell you from experience, that's false.

It depends on the purity of the drug you're doing and a little thing called genetic predisposition to addictive behavior.
Opiates are one of the few narcotics that can make a person who has shown no signs of addictive behavior into a full fledged addict, and doesn't matter how they take the drug, it matters how pure it is and the how long they do it for

At 10/26/15 03:30 PM, thenoodge wrote:
Just because they work on the same receptor in the brain does not make them the same potency.

I never claimed they were the same potency.

Morphine is much more powerful and addictive than opium, as heroin is to morphine. SAYING "all painkillers are heroin is a gross misrepresentation.

They are all the same. You might have to smoke more opium to take you to the same place as smoking heroin, but the high itself is the same. There is no safe form, only appropriate circumstances. Even codeine, which is legal over the counter in many countries, is widely abused by making "cold water extractions" to separate it from acetaminophen.

Oh, well you're a secretary, so pardon me. You would certainly know all about drug addiction.
My apologies.

Goddamn right. I see more junkie's medical records than doctors do. Plus I have a lot of dead junkie friends. Well, had.

I can tell you from experience, that's false.

Translation: It's not wrong, because I already have a problem with it, and I refuse to take responsibility for it.

It depends on the purity of the drug you're doing and a little thing called genetic predisposition to addictive behavior.
Opiates are one of the few narcotics that can make a person who has shown no signs of addictive behavior into a full fledged addict, and doesn't matter how they take the drug, it matters how pure it is and the how long they do it for

Make up your mind, is it the drug or the predisposition? Because it's neither. It's about having an appropriate relationship with drugs and using them for the right reasons and using the correct administration methods. You don't mainline H for a back ache, and you don't take pills for surgical anesthesia. It's not a black and white issue. People who are dying should be allowed to bang all the H they want, people who are healthy should avoid drugs altogether to avoid developing a tolerance that will make the drugs less effective when they are needed. There is no one size fits all answer.

At 10/26/15 03:59 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 10/26/15 03:30 PM, thenoodge wrote:

Morphine is much more powerful and addictive than opium, as heroin is to morphine. SAYING "all painkillers are heroin is a gross misrepresentation.

They are all the same. You might have to smoke more opium to take you to the same place as smoking heroin, but the high itself is the same. There is no safe form, only appropriate circumstances. Even codeine, which is legal over the counter in many countries, is widely abused by making "cold water extractions" to separate it from acetaminophen.

As someone one who has used and abused multiple forms of opiates, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the highs between these drugs are a much different experience even though they all come from the root source of opium.

Oh, well you're a secretary, so pardon me. You would certainly know all about drug addiction.
My apologies.

Goddamn right. I see more junkie's medical records than doctors do. Plus I have a lot of dead junkie friends. Well, had.

Yeah, me too. So I guess we've got that goin' for us.

I can tell you from experience, that's false.

Translation: It's not wrong, because I already have a problem with it, and I refuse to take responsibility for it.

It depends on the purity of the drug you're doing and a little thing called genetic predisposition to addictive behavior.
Opiates are one of the few narcotics that can make a person who has shown no signs of addictive behavior into a full fledged addict, and doesn't matter how they take the drug, it matters how pure it is and the how long they do it for

Make up your mind, is it the drug or the predisposition? Because it's neither. It's about having an appropriate relationship with drugs and using them for the right reasons and using the correct administration methods. You don't mainline H for a back ache, and you don't take pills for surgical anesthesia. It's not a black and white issue. People who are dying should be allowed to bang all the H they want, people who are healthy should avoid drugs altogether to avoid developing a tolerance that will make the drugs less effective when they are needed. There is no one size fits all answer.

It's both the purity and the predisposition. The person doing stepped on garbage is going to take a longer time to develop a physical addition than the person doing shit straight from Afghanistan.
When the fuck did I say you should shoot heroin for a backache?
The point is, the way you're taking it has little effect on the quickness of the addiction.
I've watched two people get every bit as addicted as the other, one snorting one shooting.
Pills are a bit different of an animal, because once you crush them, all bets are off.

As far as what the thread's actually about...
I'm fine with the drugs I've tried, and lucky and happy to have made it out alive.
Many I grew up with didn't.
So I wouldn't be trying any thing if they were made legal.

oh beautiful.
See, I'm an adult, who has learned over time and hard lessons, about

GOOD VALUES.

I would only smoke weed. And maybe acid. Nothing crazy addictive, because I've been addicted to heroin and roxys, I understand the lesson they have to offer and I've learned. Holy shit I've learned.

A lot of people think drugs are illegal because the government hates us. lol @ them, let everything be legal, I can make good adult decisions like a responsible liberal adult and I'd love to watch the world burn in its own bad decisions while I'm over here working on my and my kids and wife's future.

At 10/26/15 06:27 PM, MonkeyDLuffy wrote: let everything be legal, I can make good adult decisions like a responsible liberal adult and I'd love to watch the world burn in its own bad decisions

Well see, that's about exactly how I feel about it. We need to stop defending people against their own stupidity. Let people be complete dumbasses if they like and stop bailing them out every time their dumbassery bites them in the butt. Let them deal with it. Either they learn from it or they don't. If they fuck up too bad and ruin their lives, that's just Darwinism at work.

The reason we're so messed up as a society is mostly because this completely natural order that has worked perfectly fine for thousands of years, which is simply taking responsibility for your own self and others take responsibility for themselves, has been manipulated by all the ban this ban that protect people from themselves nanny state blah blah blah.

Instead, we "save" all the failures and then the average goes down over time because the whole natural selection process is tampered with. In the old days, do a dumbass thing = get yourself killed = fewer dumbasses around = better averages. We need to stop protecting people from themselves. We end up with inferior humans when we do so.

And another thing -- insurance is a scam. If you're completely healthy you shouldn't have to subsidize those who aren't. And if you're in bad health, sucks to be you, but you either deal with it or die. Let people do whatever the hell they want but stop bailing everyone out. That's what I say.

As unpopular of an opinion as it likely is, we need to bring back natural selection for humans and stop interfering with it. It's worked for thousands of years. Do we really want a bunch of useless people around too stupid to make good decisions but kept alive via nanny state protecting them from themselves? Because, yaknow, that's sort of the result of this irresponsible modern feel-good crap.

Well, with all this detail, at least cartels wouldn't be in business anymore.

At 10/27/15 12:39 AM, Avery wrote: Well, with all this detail, at least cartels wouldn't be in business anymore.

They probably still would be, but their strength would be greatly reduced. They would be far more manageable.

The beauty of it is, legalize all drugs = you're also cutting out majority of the drug profits of all the illegal outfits, such as gangs, mobs, and cartels. Because if a drug user can get stuff legally and with guaranteed purest quality, they'll choose that option over the sketchy street dealer.

The cartels do more than just drugs, and certainly the other things they do are far worse, but if you cut out their drug funding you greatly weaken them.

At 10/27/15 12:47 AM, @NeonSpider wrote:
option over the sketchy street dealer.

The cartels do more than just drugs, and certainly the other things they do are far worse, but if you cut out their drug funding you greatly weaken them.

Yeah, but the thing is if something like this were to happen then the government would probably have to put them in a high security ghetto, kinda like what Hitler did with the "undesireables" because they would be a problem.
The people who are conscience enough to stay away from the bad stuff will do so.

At 10/27/15 12:49 AM, Avery wrote: Yeah, but the thing is if something like this were to happen then the government would probably have to put them in a high security ghetto, kinda like what Hitler did with the "undesireables" because they would be a problem.
The people who are conscience enough to stay away from the bad stuff will do so.

You mean the drug users? I don't see why this is necessary. Sure, people might not like drug users around, but as long as they're minding their own business, I don't see what the issue is.

Most drug users are pretty harmless. And if someone commits crimes while under the influence of drugs, then get them for those crimes. Drugs shouldn't absolve one of responsibilities. You don't get a "free pass" to commit other crimes just because drugs.

See, that's the thing is people need to be held accountable to their actions. That's one of the problems in America today is that's frequently not the case. More freedom *and* more responsibility.

I guess anything that's not weed and probably acid, shrooms, ecstasy, etc.

I don't know enough about drugs. I've only done weed, and I might do acid on the night before Halloween because a friend may hook me up, but even that's a bit risky. A good friend of mine did it a few times, and he's a really peaceful guy. He really enjoyed it but said it was crazy and makes you paranoid. So I'll do it once.

At 10/27/15 02:12 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: so what if say, someone else drugged you and put you into a suggestible state, upon which they order you to go out and commit mass murder for them?

you cant refuse the offer because drugs.

sure the person who poisoned you bites it but what becomes of you? should you be held responsible for what you did under the influence, even if it was mind control you that committed the murders and not the real you?

I don't believe that is possible though. Can someone else control me to do their bidding? I'm too strong-willed for that. Even if I was so drugged-up I was completely out of it, I still don't think that would work in my specific case.

For someone else though? Okay, if the person truly didn't intend to ingest drugs but someone else put it in their food unknown to them or whatever, then yeah only the person who put it in their food should be held responsible in that case.

Still, maximum freedom and maximum responsibilities. They go hand-in-hand. If you nanny-state things to absolve people of responsibility, then you restrict freedom. People sometimes don't like taking responsibility because it scares them, but it's what needs to be in order for true freedom.

I wouldn't try most of them. I still want to try mushrooms. Maybe DMT. And a big maybe, but maaaaybe DXM. Not much beyond those, I don't think.

Also, I dunno about making all drugs legal exactly, but I'm positive that nobody should ever go to prison for possession alone. It's sickening that they do.

At 10/27/15 02:43 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: I wouldn't try most of them. I still want to try mushrooms. Maybe DMT. And a big maybe, but maaaaybe DXM. Not much beyond those, I don't think.

Also, I dunno about making all drugs legal exactly, but I'm positive that nobody should ever go to prison for possession alone. It's sickening that they do.

Well see, my argument for full legalization is the pros outweigh the cons. And if you evaluate the pros and cons for drugs being illegal vs. drugs being legal, I think you'll find one of those options is significantly better than the other.

Are there problems and will people suffer? Sure. But people will suffer anyway. If we can reduce risks to drug users, increase personal responsibility, while also decreasing the power of criminal organizations, reducing crime, freeing up prison space, while giving people more freedom, and stimulating the economy, shouldn't we do that? There are fewer downsides and more benefits than keeping the war on drugs going.

meth - gay drug
coke - for crackheads
poppers - gay
ayahuasca - seeing sounds is wrong
ketamine - bladder destuction
lsd - all acid is fake
heroin - makes you constapated

At 10/27/15 02:49 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: i dont think we have the same idea of what responsibility consists of. see, responsibility is a form of inhibition placed on you from without in my mind.

Responsibility is simply acknowledgement of cause and effect. Trigger the cause and you accept the results of the effect. That's responsibility. Trigger the cause and have people keep bailing you out so you never have to experience the effect? Or have people that keep holding you back? That's nanny-state.

maximum freedom is entirely free of restraint.

And freedom of restraint means responsibility for all outcomes. It means no one holds you back but if you hang yourself, no one saves you either. You're on your own. That's responsibility and that is freedom.

Either people hold you back (and thus you have neither freedom nor responsibility) or they don't (and you have both).

I'll just do weed, even though chronic use could cause behavioral changes like laziness, slowed reaction time. Getting caught while driving under the influence of marijuana is still DUI .