All I said was that the high one gets from drugs is the same high we get when we're stimulated by good music, sex, or other forms of entertainment. I attend large field raves and upon arrival feel my heart pound, my mood improve, etc. - I'm essentially feeling a cocaine or amphetamine rush, and it can be shown in brain scans that the same chemicals said drugs affect upon consuming are being tweaked. I even addressed the health concern separately in a caveat, so I'm not sure why you're even asking me this question.
Because I fail to see your point. Music, by its very nature, has an inherent upper dosage of sorts, and therefore it is nearly impossible to develop significant dependence to it. It is hardly comparable to the dangers of recreational chemicals.
By all medical and scientific standards?
No. So tell me which ones are you willing to employ.
Caffeine and sugar are both psychoactive drugs; they both alter mood and create physical dependency. Caffeine has already been touched on, but sugar is an analgesic and acts on your opioid receptors much like opiates.
That might well be true by some criteria, but it is really a tergiversation of the true matter. Neither caffeine nor sugar are the danger for mental balance that marijuana and alcohol are.
Almost all recent literature shows that drugs considered "soft" have no long-term consequences on most users' mental health.
I sincerely wonder why you expect that to mean anything. "Most users" is not nearly enough. Most victims of bullying don't develop heavy trauma, but that is no reason to ignore the dangers either.
In fact, ecstasy is being studied as a reliable tool to treat depression and PTSD in the military.
I thought we had agreed on the dangers of psychoative chemicals earlier on? Aren't you backtracking?
I don't particularly doubt your claim, but really... you shouldn't try to sneak medical uses (which I must assume have proper supervision) as arguments to defend recreational use. It hurts your case.
All ego diminishing drugs are excellent at fighting social anxiety.
"Ego diminishing". Wow. What a spin... :areyoucra
I can't help but remember how lobothomy used to be considered good for certain kinds of anxiety as well.
Sorry, but I won't buy that propaganda.
I know of many people who only discovered an appreciation for dance after they took ecstasy at a rave. Through a few experiences these people come away with new confidence. Eventually they can go clubbing and not even drink. Introverts dancing, and when sober... Ecstasy does it better than any group therapy.
Out of curiosity, which kind of resources lead you to that statement?
I find it, quite frankly, dangerously irresponsible. And, certainly, not at all credible. You are attempting to present the shortcomings of our social environment as arguments towards chemical inconsequence. That is only a short step away from full callousness and even worse stances. Worse still, it leads to those stances.
Psychedelics don't create mental disorders. At worse they bring out a pre-existing condition, just as a stressful situation at work might, or a bad divorce. At best they can get people to think hard about deep philosophical and spiritual subjects.
"At best" is a cop-out. And by your logic, gluten does not create celiac disease either. You are playing with words and spin in an attempt to protect your desires.
Even hard drugs like methamphetamine used once or twice have insignificant long-term effects on the brain.
Yes, poisons and even biological disease agents have a minimum effective dosage to create their effects. Heck, even brass knuckles require a certain minimum level of usage before they crush your bones.
So?
So knowing that most illicit drugs are productive for one's psyche, are safer than caffeine and alcohol, have little physical dependency, why the witch-hunt?
What on Earth you mean by "productive for one's psyche"? That is hardly true. Nitpicking chance situations to misrepresent such a dangerous activity is shameful, Gene. As for safety, you are either deluded or flat out lying.