/pt/ – Petrarchan

>>6046 I can agree with this sentiment, though I have some sympathy for the cathinone degens. But the proliferation of "microdosing" has been annoying to witness.

>>6046 Consuming "recreational" drugs, smoking, and drinking alcohol is degenerate behaviour.

>>6052 I think that they may lose relevance simply because of how ubiquitous they now are. Everyone who wants to has held the psychedelic magnet to their TV brain and saw the pretty colors and felt the oneness to their species. Who cares now?

>>6063 Drinking is eternal, pot smoking and pill popping are just phases.

>>6079 >I think anyone who dislikes drugs has basically let their inner child die. Yeah, what really lets your 'inner child' (gay phrasing) shine is poisoning yourself with neurotoxins.

>>6100 This vaguepost has nothing to do with the chemical composition of any drugs listed. I do not understand why you would reply.

>>6127 Meditate on it

>>6138 What do you get out of coming to small imageboards and posting "haha gotcha"s?

>>6147 >most of them seem to have never tried any drug and know next to nothing about them. You don't have to try the drugs to know they're impact.

>>6147 my hypothesis: the internet, those who are "online," and especially imageboard frequenters are usually people who avoid the "real world". Interaction with the real world is essentially the only way to interact with drugs and drug culture (except for the very small minority of drug autists who dnm order things that they take alone in their rooms, but i ignore this peculiarity). whether because the real world scares them or the real world forsook them, they cast it off and disdain mass culture and its accoutrements. so, normies and their drugs are despised. very similarly, those online frequenters adopt a contrarian counterculture, and the counterculture to today's western view is something like "the stoic against degeneracy." whether right or not, any recreational drug use is lumped with hedonism, and so this archetypal person will posture against it. i also agree with >>6156, and i think its mostly because everywhere on the net has been monocultured. there's no more vastly different people interacting with little to no overbearing structure. >>6158 first of all, >their second, why? and i don't think "they're impact is obvious" is a real argument. >>6152 i used to really enjoy psychedelics and think they were really le based, but i decided it was time to be mostly done with them. probably its mostly a subconscious anxiety of going full schizo, but also, once they start feeling less than only fun, i thought that they were not worth the investment.

>>6147 my hypothesis: the internet, those who are "online," and especially imageboard frequenters are usually people who avoid the "real world". Interaction with the real world is essentially the only way to interact with drugs and drug culture (except for the very small minority of drug autists who dnm order things that they take alone in their rooms, but i ignore this peculiarity). whether because the real world scares them or the real world forsook them, they cast it off and disdain mass culture and its accoutrements. so, normies and their drugs are despised. very similarly, those online frequenters adopt a contrarian counterculture, and the counterculture to today's western view is something like "the stoic against degeneracy." whether right or not, any recreational drug use is lumped with hedonism, and so this archetypal person will posture against it. i also agree with >>6156, and i think its mostly because everywhere on the net has been monocultured. there's no more vastly different people interacting with little to no overbearing structure. >>6158 first of all, >their second, why? and i don't think "they're impact is obvious" is a real argument. >>6152 i used to really enjoy psychedelics and think they were really le based, but i decided it was time to be mostly done with them. probably its mostly a subconscious anxiety of going full schizo, but also, once they start feeling less than only fun, i thought that they were not worth the investment.

>>6147 my hypothesis: the internet, those who are "online," and especially imageboard frequenters are usually people who avoid the "real world". Interaction with the real world is essentially the only way to interact with drugs and drug culture (except for the very small minority of drug autists who dnm order things that they take alone in their rooms, but i ignore this peculiarity). whether because the real world scares them or the real world forsook them, they cast it off and disdain mass culture and its accoutrements. so, normies and their drugs are despised. very similarly, those online frequenters adopt a contrarian counterculture, and the counterculture to today's western view is something like "the stoic against degeneracy." whether right or not, any recreational drug use is lumped with hedonism, and so this archetypal person will posture against it. i also agree with >>6156, and i think its mostly because everywhere on the net has been monocultured. there's no more vastly different people interacting with little to no overbearing structure. >>6158 first of all, >their second, why? and i don't think "they're impact is obvious" is a real argument. >>6152 i used to really enjoy psychedelics and think they were really le based, but i decided it was time to be mostly done with them. probably its mostly a subconscious anxiety of going full schizo, but also, once they start feeling less than only fun, i thought that they were not worth the investment.

>>6147 my hypothesis: the internet, those who are "online," and especially imageboard frequenters are usually people who avoid the "real world". Interaction with the real world is essentially the only way to interact with drugs and drug culture (except for the very small minority of drug autists who dnm order things that they take alone in their rooms, but i ignore this peculiarity). whether because the real world scares them or the real world forsook them, they cast it off and disdain mass culture and its accoutrements. so, normies and their drugs are despised. very similarly, those online frequenters adopt a contrarian counterculture, and the counterculture to today's western view is something like "the stoic against degeneracy." whether right or not, any recreational drug use is lumped with hedonism, and so this archetypal person will posture against it. i also agree with >>6156, and i think its mostly because everywhere on the net has been monocultured. there's no more vastly different people interacting with little to no overbearing structure. >>6158 first of all, >their second, why? and i don't think "they're impact is obvious" is a real argument. >>6152 i used to really enjoy psychedelics and think they were really le based, but i decided it was time to be mostly done with them. probably its mostly a subconscious anxiety of going full schizo, but also, once they start feeling less than only fun, i thought that they were not worth the investment.

>>6174 You can't 2serious4you your way out of this one

>>6175 Never going to take the mask off, huh? Does your brain release dopamine when you post disingenuous comments on the internet in bad faith? Why are you afraid of a genuine discussion or any sincerity?

>>6237 I am what I am.

>>6262 Common misconception that psychs cause you to go schizo. It's actually dissociatives that bring out latent schizophrenia, especially marijuana. But if you're older than 25, have smoked pot, and aren't schizo then you'll never get it. You might go mad but it won't be the 24/7 round the clock ride of schizophrenia.

>>6263 Hmm, I think psychs can trigger things, but I agree that weed is probably worse. I don't smoke full strength weed anymore because it made me feel literally insane (like people are reading my mind and the radio is talking to me), but I like the low THC high CBD varieties. Family genetics are not in my favor for schizo et al mental disorders. But I haven't gone fully loco yet so sometimes I still roll the dice (retardedly, I know).

>>6834 Sorry to hear your loss. We had some fent addicts living out of a broken down car across from my flat last year, nodding in public. I can see why people grow so suspicious of the absolute proliferation of extremely powerful artifical opiates and other drugs (by which, I mean that some higher power is flooding the streets). I mean, they are incomparable to even heroin, and even more popular. The popular approach to liberalize the cartels to death seems misguided. Something like the Nordic model for prostitution seems more appropriate: attempt to rehabilitate the addict, if possible, and prosecute the high levels out of hand. But money, corruption, and scale seems the biggest obstacles.

>>7666 I should have been clearer. When I say I like the idea, I mean that I like the idea of drugs in an abstract sense, in that other people could choose to take them and have interesting experiences and ideas. I don't mean that I'd particularly like to take them. I like my conscious experience to be the way it is, mediated by nothing much except alcohol, and never to any excess there.

>>7666 I don't hold the position, so it's hard for me to really make a defense for it, but I imagine it is as simple as "taking drugs, which we consider harmful to the individual and society as a whole, is morally wrong, and thus their legalization cannot occur". Drugs do change people, sometimes for the worse, and probably everyone has seen evidence of their worst qualities. I think something which is often not considered is that drugs which are not accepted within mainstream culture are more volatile than those which are. By that, I mean that their effects and influence are harder to predict. Alcohol is basically the same everytime, and most people are fine on it, except the occasional party animal. Something like LSD can be very hard to understand, making even the perfect candidate in the perfect setting react negatively, and also its ability to flip the schizo switch has a kind of unknown factor. People like predictability, and introducing an unknown lessens that.

>>7666 >I've never tried drugs (unless alcohol is counted as one), but I like the idea of them. Drugs are fun with the right people, mindset, and setting. If you get the opportunity to participate in a situation where those three factors are met at the highest degree possible, you should take it.

>>7784 Understood, but it seems that some drugs are quite harmless (and some are quite harmful). I never hear about complications arising from MDMA. Part of the issue is that non-users never see normal people taking drugs and going well, only the people who can't cope with them and are thus found sprawled on the sidewalk, fighting each other in the parks, etc. Really, a sensible policy would be to legalize some drugs and come down extremely harshly on the illicit ones, as I say, Singapore-style. >>7792 It probably depends on which drug you are talking about, but I'm generally a bit cautious of the idea of altering my experience radically. It's a hard idea to wrap my head around. When I hear about people's experiences with ketamine, and see studies on sheep where it turns whole regions of the brain basically off, it's hard for me to see why that would be pleasurable. Maybe the pleasure comes after in the form of an anti-depressant effect/pleasant feeling of lightheadedness.

>>7784 Understood, but it seems that some drugs are quite harmless (and some are quite harmful). I never hear about complications arising from MDMA. Part of the issue is that non-users never see normal people taking drugs and going well, only the people who can't cope with them and are thus found sprawled on the sidewalk, fighting each other in the parks, etc. Really, a sensible policy would be to legalize some drugs and come down extremely harshly on the illicit ones, as I say, Singapore-style. >>7792 It probably depends on which drug you are talking about, but I'm generally a bit cautious of the idea of altering my experience radically. It's a hard idea to wrap my head around. When I hear about people's experiences with ketamine, and see studies on sheep where it turns whole regions of the brain basically off, it's hard for me to see why that would be pleasurable. Maybe the pleasure comes after in the form of an anti-depressant effect/pleasant feeling of lightheadedness.