Jump to content

Am I the only person who has never used an illegal drug


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Only part I can really comment on is the subjective experience being better than alcohol and thinking about less people getting into the situation to be angry drunks.

I don't think I worded it well (look at the time stamp and remember we're both australian lol) but did want to acknowledge part of the challenge with this particular drug is how it could and has been be used against someone else rather than just how people will take it themselves.

All good. For what it's worth I had a similar experience the several times I had it. A good drunken feeling without being out of control, and it wore off after 2-3hrs and you went back to stone cold sober with basically no hangover. But yeah, it had (has?) a really bad rep as being the date rape drug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I feel bad for people who have never used psychedelics.

Took some pretty wild Hawaiian shrooms at Glasto back in 2004. One of the most profound experiences of my life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Anyone dabbled with DMT? Was reading about this stuff the other day. Sounds horrific. 

No, but there is a section on it in the trainspotting follow up and I thought it sounded pretty awesome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

No, but there is a section on it in the trainspotting follow up and I thought it sounded pretty awesome. 

One thing we should never do is trust film or tv to portray an accurate representation of what it's like to get off your tits. Usually, what they show is absurdly over the top - you do not see flowers sprouting out of people's heads when high on weed. Likewise, taking acid does not make you think you can fly. 

After some of the things I've read, I wouldn't touch DMT with a bargepole. It sounds like one trip can have serious, long-term implications for your mental health. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

One thing we should never do is trust film or tv to portray an accurate representation of what it's like to get off your tits. Usually, what they show is absurdly over the top - you do not see flowers sprouting out of people's heads when high on weed. Likewise, taking acid does not make you think you can fly. 

After some of the things I've read, I wouldn't touch DMT with a bargepole. It sounds like one trip can have serious, long-term implications for your mental health. 

Ive tried DMT, and it was awesome, a ihad a very good expirience with it, i just laid back closed my eyes and enjoyed the trip, and in real time its a reaaly short one, like 5 to 10 minutes. 

I read somewhere that crack is the same as cocaine, that it has a different name cuz of a marketing thing, and a racism thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Ive tried DMT, and it was awesome, a ihad a very good expirience with it, i just laid back closed my eyes and enjoyed the trip, and in real time its a reaaly short one, like 5 to 10 minutes. 

 

Did you meet any inter-dimensional beings? Because that seems to happen to an awful lot of people who use this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I read somewhere that crack is the same as cocaine, that it has a different name cuz of a marketing thing, and a racism thing. 

There is virtually no chemical difference between the two.  The only real difference is coke is usually bumped (snorted) while crack is usually smoked.  The high is faster acting, more intense, and shorter lasting with the latter.  Of course, the main societal difference is the iniquity of mandatory minimums, which delineate between the two because crack users are predominately black while coke users are predominately white. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Of course, the main societal difference is the iniquity of mandatory minimums, which delineate between the two because crack users are predominately black while coke users are predominately white. 

The other is that the vast majority of cocaine users buy their cocaine with their own money, and the vast majority of crack users buy their crack with money earned thorough crime. So the impact on society is significantly less for cocaine use. Because crack drives need far more than cocaine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The other is that the vast majority of cocaine users buy their cocaine with their own money, and the vast majority of crack users buy their crack with money earned thorough crime.

This is a rather broad claim to make without any citations.  Although, certainly, people who tend to be crack users will also tend to be more predisposed to criminal activity.  This is rather obviously explained by intervening variables, not any substantive differences between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Crack cocaine and heroin account for between 90%-99% of societal costs depending in which source you use (in the UK). 

Again, what you're referring to is plainly explained by other variables.  The most obvious of which is that crack is cheaper, and thus more likely to be used by poorer individuals/communities.  Which was the whole reason for its mass production and distribution in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, what you're referring to is plainly explained by other variables.  The most obvious of which is that crack is cheaper, and thus more likely to be used by poorer individuals/communities.  Which was the whole reason for its mass production and distribution in the first place.

Serves to further criminalize poverty and, therefore, marginalized communities. Heavier penalties for the cheaper version of the same drug -- "hey, have some class and make more money if you want to go to jail for 30 days instead of 5 years." A heavier penalty on the drug does nothing to the drug -- it's an inanimate object -- it hurts those communities that are already poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

There is virtually no chemical difference between the two.  The only real difference is coke is usually bumped (snorted) while crack is usually smoked.  The high is faster acting, more intense, and shorter lasting with the latter.  Of course, the main societal difference is the iniquity of mandatory minimums, which delineate between the two because crack users are predominately black while coke users are predominately white. 

Much, much much more intense.  More intense high.  Much shorter.  Much more intense cravings.  There is a reason people went bat shit over freebasing and crack in the 90s.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Much more intense cravings.

As someone who's actually smoked crack, and had a problem with coke, no, the cravings are not more intense.  The high is definitely more intense though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

As someone who's actually smoked crack, and had a problem with coke, no, the cravings are not more intense.  The high is definitely more intense though.

I also speak from experience, and they were for me and everyone else I have ever known who freebased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...