If you have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia it's starting to seem like drugs that seem harmless like marijuana (specifically THC?) can definitely bring it out. At least, that's what seemed to happen to my mother and another friend.
In Europe this (some rec drugs bring out latent schizophrenia) is taught in med school as a “known fact” (source: psychiatrist friend) so it’s well beyond “starting to seem”
This was discovered pretty much early on when LSD was first discovered. One of the early (cough) "uses" for LSD was for medical professionals to simulate what some patients experience.
(At least that's what I remember from "LSD, My Problem Child" by Albert Hoffman. Granted, it's been ~30 years since I read it.
Unfortunately it's hammered on so hard, and without nuance, that kids will discard it with the other half-truths that are told. And also the tendency for families to cover up and hide any "shameful" facts like uncle Jim having spent some time in a facility, that kids might not know at all that there's a family history.
DARE is one of the reasons I started smoking cigarettes. The only time the teacher was ever actually honest was when he described the effects of nicotine. Everything else was half-truths and scary lies.
Unfortunately, this is just statistics. There are cases that lie outside of that age range. I know of two cases, personally.
Things like stress, drugs, childbirth, significant life changes, etc can trigger psychosis and latent schizophrenia at any age, it's just statistically more likely to happen during adolescence and the period right after.
Another way to look at this is that adolescence is when someone experiences new stresses, significant life changes, drug experimentation, etc, which can be triggers for schizophrenia especially during age-correlated prodromal phases.
Yeah, in this case it seems to be menopause + losing her job and having all the free time and nothing to focus on plus who knows what other stressors. I think something bad happened with her Phish friends.
The really tough part for me is she was out of work, so I paid her to be a beta reader for my book. She's a brilliant person and very detail-oriented. She went way over and beyond what I asked for. She spent months and took three passes on the book making different kinds of notes. Then her problems seemed to come on right at the end of that. I worry that all the increased mental activity, and then suddenly not having anything to focus on again, might have been the trigger.
I can identify with the guilt. In my case with my friend, their behavior lead to me distancing myself from them, not knowing what was going on, and I was his main source of socializing. Same thing happened with several of his other friends. The isolation definitely was something that amplified the progression of his illness to detachment with reality. Didn't help that the people he sought friendship from in lieu of us were scammers who fed into his delusions to take what little he had even when he became homeless.
If I could go back in time, I would do things differently, but at the same time I can't blame myself for not understanding what was happening and doing what was, at the time, the healthiest thing for myself.
I kinda heard lots of whispers when I was very young (like 6-7) and now I'm 40 and haven't had any such problems.
I blamed it on the drugs I got prescripted for sleeping (I had bad allergy and was scratching myself to the point of bleeding during sleep so I got some "pacifying" drugs).
Well, not just drugs-children are more likely to experience hallucinations even without drugs.
I still have vivid memories of experiencing what (in hindsight) I realise were hypnopompic hallucinations, around the age of 6 or 7. I wasn’t taking any regular medications, that I can remember. But, I grew out of it, as kids usually do.
A fun aside here: experiments in which people who’ve taken hallucinogens are placed in brain scanners reveal activation patterns which look an awful lot like what we see when we put small children in brain scanners, and this somewhat accords with the neurogenesis vs pathway pruning see-saw model of brain development.
I’ll say personally my experiences with psychedelics brought back memories of childhood - how I engaged with the world, how my mind would go off down different paths, the intensity of focus - so, you’re probably not far off here.
I always said psychedelics reduce you to a child, with reduce having no negative connotation, just a word that describes the experience. It's like sending your perception back in time in some ways, while retaining some matured aspects.
Lower doses can induce hallucinations before it becomes full on delirium that you see in higher doses. You'll regularly hear about people seeing "spiders" after taking 25-50mg of Benedryl, the recommended dose.
I think that may be more common in the elderly. I had full-on delirium from 5 x 50 mg, however. I would not recommend. It took me months for my body to recover. The auditory hallucinations lasted the longest (2-3 days), but my body and my mind was a wreck for months. Thanks to our beautiful hospital that did not administer the antidote for anticholinergic toxicity.
I started hearing the voices well after 30. First it began with gang stalking, and by coincidence I am from the “home town” of Americas thought control elite. I was “recruited” (press ganged) and it is only a determination not to accept a word these say that keeps me unconcerned with the collapse of the lie that is modernity in my life.
I just want to point out that psychosis and schizophrenia tend to get worse over time, so while you might have a handle on it now, without treatment you might not in the future. They also have much better prognoses with treatment, even complete remission.
I've watched several people go from having a grip on reality, thinking they don't need treatment, to absolutely losing their minds. It's tragic and I hate to see it happen.
Point is moments of lucidity should be seized upon, I say this as someone who briefly experienced psychosis after extreme sleep deprivation. It was fucking terrifying and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I keep hoping my friend gets to the point where you are someday. Another thing not working in our favor is she's the most stubborn person I know. She thinks she can beat this thing with her mind and no help from anyone.
Don’t be. After nearly two decades of development I experience the precipice of humanity. The state of the art of human consciousness. I have peered beyond the veil and what I see is terrifying yet truth.
As someone who had psychedelic experiences, I thought they'd be like that.
In the few hours I experienced hallucinations after not sleeping for ~7 days, I also heard a radio playing faintly in the background. "Faintly" doesn't do it justice because it was very much undeniably audibly there, even if I knew it wasn't.
I also heard footsteps, felt their vibrations, heard and felt stuff on shelves shake in response to the stepping. It was stunning how in concert and real it was. It was like it was more real than reality itself.
I was aware it wasn't real which made it fucking terrifying, but it was both beautiful and absolutely fascinating at the same time. I was both in awe and horrified that it could be permanent.
Brains are crazy stuff and I can see just how easily someone can become delusional based on what is very much factual in their own experience of reality. There literally is no boundary between reality and true hallucinations, which is a terrifying prospect and
I wonder if there are any schizophrenics with dissociative identity disorder. We're not schizophrenic but we have voices (we don't hear them as from outside though)
I have met a few people online who told me they were diagnosed with both.
Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) and DID can apparently co-occur.
From [0] (2016):
> One study showed that in a sample of patients diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) 74.3% also met diagnostic criteria of a SSD, 49.5% met diagnostic criteria for schizoaffective disorder, and 18.7% met diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia.
The study cited in [0] is dated from 1996, however(!), so it was done not long after the change from changing the name MPD to DID. Not sure how much weight to put on a study that old.
From [1] (2022):
> Numerous studies have shown that up to 50% of patients with schizophrenia meet the diagnostic criteria for dissociative personality disorder.
The two linked studies cited in [1] are dated in 1998 and 2004. So also, still old, but not quite as much.
It seems well-known that the two conditions co-occur. I don't have access to the linked studies, however, and am not willing to pay the subscription or single-paper fees.
I do have DID but SSDs have been thoroughly ruled out for me (I was checked for both, as well as other potential conditions). My assessment seemed quite thorough.
I'd be willing to try institutional academic accounts if you ever have some paywalls article you want to read. Just shoot me an email at partner_privacy@proton.me
Also, my partner likely has DID and is struggling with it somewhat. If you have advice or are willing to answer some questions, I'd appreciate talking about it. But I know it's a big ask, respectfully, so I understand if not.
> ...if you ever have some paywalls article you want to read. Just shoot me an email...
Thanks. I appreciate it. Will do if I come across something.
> Also, my partner likely has DID and is struggling with it somewhat. If you have advice or are willing to answer some questions, I'd appreciate talking about it.
Sure. Not sure if you're wanting advice/help for yourself, your partner, or both, but email me at shippage_hn@proton.me if you'd like to talk. I know more about my own particular kind of DID than others, but am willing to talk about what I know of the generalities, too, as well as a bit about my experiences (including getting a diagnosis) if that helps you or your partner.
The fact that in different parts of the world the voices can be helpful instead of intrusive makes me feel like the drugs are not the problem but how external forces view the drugs or if we really wanna talk like crazy people how the drugs influence the people around you even if they do not directly know you are using the drugs.
The voices are quite real, we’re not alone in our own minds, and the it is the greatest taboo of society to discuss.
It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything. Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own. That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
Readers will be so upset when a perspective challenges their rehashed psychological diatribes as mountains of lies. They got “help” damn you. Their friends (“real people”) are hurt by the craze and they’re more hurt when someone says “modern science and society is wrong.”
The true Truth is whatever existential reality reflects, not what we are prepared to understand. We are not alone in our own minds, we have collectively known this since before our generations and the “straights” of society are so adamant of their self possessed lies they will condemn those insights as crackpot crazy.
> It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything.
That which you try to attack and downplay as "cult of science explanations" is actually something extremely simple: you need to show something, anything at all, that actually supports your beliefs.
How can you tell something exists or works as you think it does if you are unable to show it?
Do you expect everyone should just believe anything anyone says? What is there to tell lunatics and snake oil salesmen apart from those who are actually onto something?
> Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own.
Ok, you formed an hypothesis. Now tell me, how do you go about showing others that things do work the way you think they do? How can they check them for themselves? What do you expect from others?
> That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony?
> If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony?
Even without an explanation, you can use statistics to find the fruits of the beliefs, though. Does 100 people believe in not working and rather join a cult that worships the watermelon god? Fine! How did that work out for them in the span of 3 generations?
I think that some beliefs can have value and merit, just based on measures of quality of life and society.
> Even without an explanation, you can use statistics to find the fruits of the beliefs, though.
I hope you are not serious.
> Does 100 people believe in not working and rather join a cult that worships the watermelon god?
Hundreds of loonies making nonsense statements that no one can verify is collective lunacy that adds no value. It only takes a single person to show something exists and works to add substance to a claim. If all those loonies push a belief that none of them can support, they are fools.
This sort of absurdness would mean absolute morons, such as those in Heaven's Gate cult, should be taken seriously in their claims about aliens and comets. Let that sink in.
> It only takes a single person to show something exists and world to add substance to a claim
You cannot be serious. Proofs take thousands of man hours and decades of railing against well entrenched beliefs such as yours (that you would see it and accept it readily if true.)
This is one of those things that cannot be proven to more than one person at a time through anything other than a personal revelation. Everyone everywhere will respond exactly as you now do regardless of “poof” or the severity and consequence of prolonged incredulity. This is one of those situations where you must undeceive yourself. Observe humanity and your own life. All except those who actively deceive themselves will admit science is as close to understanding our minds as horoscopes.
I do not criticize your doubts, I criticize that you think truth and reality are so easily accepted by the mind who “refuses to believe.”
So like Matthew 6:28, "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin", and something about how they're as glorious as King Solomon despite not having clothes or jobs. The religion in question did OK, despite this bad advice.
Sure, because most Christians don't take Jesus' teachings too seriously. You shouldn't slap a Christian (or anyone) on the cheek for no reason, but if you were to, the odds of him responding by inviting you to slap the other cheek are pretty slim.
What about arresting and sending to the mental hospital multiple times to deal with psychopathic caregivers whose purpose is ultimately to make you homeless?
A good Christian or any good person would viewing that scene would actively fight to make the person sufferings life better instead of feeding into the false "caregivers" or more aptly put abusers who are more interested in robbing people than improving their lives.
There's a long human history of beliefs like that in spiritualism, animism, etc. People believed they could hear the voices of their dead ancestors, spirits, etc for example.
I wouldn't describe this as "raving", this is someone who has had very real personal experiences. To them, they happened just as much as the sun rises and sets. I don't know what I'm getting at other than have some patience and compassion for people who experience distressing things that they themselves cannot explain.
Simply put the observer affect shows that somethings cannot be measured without causing change to the system hence may not be verifable.
Maybe the only way to make enough random looney until they outnumber the "sane" individuals. The only issues being how do you organize the new pyramid structure which will evidently be formed by this new "religious" organization?
> Simply put the observer affect shows that somethings cannot be measured without causing change to the system hence may not be verifable.
That's fantastic, but fails to provide any meaningful input. I mean, the whole point is to have a process that allows you to understand and predict how the universe works. If you formulate s hypothesis that is impossible to verify, how can you tell if it matches reality or if it's pure nonsense? And more importantly, what's the value of a system of beliefs that explains nothing and does not match any observable aspect of reality? Is the only value you see in that the uncertain smugness of being "right", whatever that means, in spite of always being wrong?
Questions of self-identity aren't scientific questions. Science, or experience more generally, can't tell you who you are, or indeed, even tell you if there's one of "you" in your head or many. If you assert that you are not the same person you were five seconds ago, that's a scientifically unassailable claim - as well as impossible to prove to others.
So no answer to the question "who am I" is strictly speaking true or false, in an objective sense. But that doesn't mean all self-interpretations are equally good. Some self-interpretations can be very destructive. It doesn't take much imagination, or reading history books, to see how defining yourself to be multiple persons/personalities can be very destructive.
Every network is different (though common themes exist).
Firstly yes, they’re probably there and not revealing themselves (which is most typical.) They will either reveal themselves for some purpose or not at all (I had caused a stir, and a “hooligan army” went ahead and “recruited” me.)
Well after full immersion I looked back through my life and saw I was not really alone. Little things, some hypnogogia here and there, odd games they play, and other nonsense suppressed or blown off. Most are never aware or comprehend any of it. Those that do, what would they say to you? Look at these responses. And I know what is going on. Most others are desperate.
The noisy networks are usually those of prisons. You will hear very similar accounts among many who have done small stints. Enough for a network to take an interest, not long enough to be coerced into eternal silence. I have never been to prison though you can guess what city I’m from if I say “the most controversial prison system in America up to a decade ago.”
Prisons full of slave (coerced) networks is no doubt how the humanity level horrors began. The streets (and all humanity) are saturated with these various networks. Plenty of accounts by others throughout time, you have ignored them. The prisons and the black ops military power cults are the worst. Don’t worry, those are busy in Ukraine and Gaza. What do you think these would do for fun?
Power extorts ordinary power infrastructures of humanity. No one is going to talk about it.
There is a “you don’t talk about it” element. I don’t care. You cannot make me care. I so don’t care I take pains to be a contrarian. I make people f-off. I do not capitulate. It doesn’t make me “special”, I’m of the few who talk about it, even if it does no good. Let it then be for an account. To remain silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit. Complicity be damned. These want to play God among you, and they extort each other for this ends.
And I suppose I should risk a flaggable wall of text to say there are “families” who have protected and guided us throughout our generations. Like all of modernity these are falling apart and cannot compete with the devastating industrialized efficiency of prison networks.
I wonder if alcohol is one of the seemingly harmless drugs whose abuse catalyzes such conditions in susceptible people.
Because, if so, then alcohol's ubiquity in society would imply that it is probably responsible (in the sense that substances are responsible) for most such conversions.
It's kind of worse with alcohol because the psychosis associated with that as an exacerbating factor is more related to alcoholic encephalopathy, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome etc... much of which can be brought on with self medicating with alcohol. Definitely a component but more like psychosis and mania drive you to drink because these experiences are awful more than a causative factor that's been proven
Nobody serious believe that alcohol is harmless. There are many anti-alcohol campaign and laws always running around. It's just that alcohol has been part of our culture for thousands of year, that we monstly manage it. It's not the case of cannabis, psilocybin and even less LSD (even if you can find historic usage for the not man made ones)
Schizos may take alcohol or cigarettes to calm down, a form of self medication. On the long term these may worsen, in the immediate they help. Why do you think they smoke a lot?!? To treat. If you smoke or drink, what do you do after a tough day - smoke or drink, to relax, feels great. Schizos may have a tough day , but not from external stimuli, but from internal stimuli
Alcohol is pretty bad for your brain so I would not be surprised. And while it's not really a hallucinogen itself (comparatively) I've heard some pretty hellish stories of severe alcohol withdrawals. Just going without sleep (completely) for several days can cause hallucinations and stress - and this is a common symptom of more serious withdrawal.
I would imagine other drugs which produce severe (and stressful) withdrawal could also trigger this. The stress alone cannot be good.
Or perhaps people predisposed to schizophrenia are more likely to seek out drugs. Something like 9 in 10 schizophrenics smoke cigarettes too, is schizophrenia caused by nicotine or do schizophrenics smoke because they’re predisposed to do so? I find it hard to believe that so many schizophrenics smoke cigarettes and are not also predisposed towards using other drugs.
I think blindly accepting the statement ‘drugs can cause schizophrenia’ is harmful because we don’t actually know if the drugs trigger it or if the disorder makes them seek out drugs.
Some drugs have been known to activate schizophrenia; particularly psychedelics like LSD. However, in order for this to happen, one likely already needs to have a genetic predisposition. I use LSD about once every week or two and I haven't noticed any schizophrenia yet, so it is very much a YMMV.
It's important to know that the correlation can have some other cause. Like that people with predisposition to schizophrenia may seek out drugs.
Keep in mind also the typical onset for schizophrenia is teenage years or early 20s in men, and is often later, up to early 30s in women. These are years you might experiment with drugs.
The huge number of them who smoke cigarettes prior to their first episode - a different form of self medication. 90% of people with it smoke and there is research indicating a greater likelhood prior to first episode. I’ll have to look up those numbers though. (Edit, seems about 60% at a time when the average US population was at 20%)
We often like to diminish things like nicotine and alcohol, but they are also psychoactive drugs even if they are far more natural and have a far longer history with humans in general, but also among respective subgroups/subspecies of humans specifically.
For those who were not aware, alcohol is a substance that Europeans and Asians have evolved with over about 8 millennia and the American tribes evolved with tobacco for about 12 millennia. Considering other factors like how up until very recently evolutionary pressures had far greater and more acute effects on the gene pool, it should really not surprise anyone that certain effects of tobacco and alcohol may be far less apparent than something like LSD, MDMA, cocaine, heroine, and even marijuana that has had far less evolutionary pressure/impact on humanity. Simply put, at best, it seems humans or our subgroups/subspecies have not sufficiently evolved to adapt to the uses of those newer substances over time, if that is even possible (i.e., at what level is self-poisoning by several different means simply too overwhelming and not adapted to, but rather becomes an evolutionary terminus?).
It would be rather interesting to me to see research on something like drug induced mental health related issues that compares teetotaling type groups like the Amish and Mormons/LDS to the general public and individual drug user cohorts. If anyone is aware of something along that line, I would appreciate a pointer in that direction beyond what I can search/AI.
I am someone that does not do any illegal drugs, and minimal legal drugs like caffeine and alcohol, but I see the effects of them all on people around me and am even supporting a friend that is trying to pull away from marijuana use. My observation over many years and many different experiences around the world with different groups is rather clear that there is definitely some kind of interaction between drug use and various mental disorders; mental disorders which we also similarly mitigate like how caffeine is mitigated or even negated as a drug at all.
We should really be asking ourselves why the western world in particular is so fixated on self-harming with drugs; be it caffeine or meth. And no, please spare us all your justifications for how caffeine is fine or micro-dosing has been amazing, because they are simply varying levels of rationalization, I do it too, I’m just not in it as deeply. And no, just because you were able to become rich with and on the back of drugs does not mean you did it without harm, you likely just scandalized a lot of harm to, e.g., get rich selling some service to some coke head investor who will only fuel the abuse of data mining and social media addiction.
I see all the drug users around me make excuses for why their drug is fine (“it’s just caffeine”) and they are in control. It’s never true though, even when I use caffeine at times or tell myself I can be socially acceptable by also having a beer/glass of wine and it has an enormous effects on me because my body and mind are not used to dealing with the drug in a regular basis; it is really just coping and rationalization. In simply just willing to admit it to myself.
Frankly, I sometimes think that especially the western world is rather terrified with facing the reality of how damaged we are due to and from drug use, so we effectively just suppress even investigating it sufficiently even as it is burning right through our whole civilization in too many ways to list right now.
Caffeine, alcohol, marijuana. LSD, heroine, cocaine, crack, MDMA, meth, and all the other things I’m not even aware of; are all substances that effectively cause the brain to intentionally short circuit and run corrupted scripts in their minds, sometimes overlocking and wearing out things, other times scrambling data. We then though convince ourselves that the poison/toxin taken, was really a beneficial substance and the mind going haywire for a certain time was a good thing.
> And no, please spare us all your justifications for how caffeine is fine or micro-dosing has been amazing, because they are simply varying levels of rationalization, I do it too, I’m just not in it as deeply. And no, just because you were able to become rich with and on the back of drugs does not mean you did it without harm, you likely just scandalized a lot of harm to, e.g., get rich selling some service to some coke head investor who will only fuel the abuse of data mining and social media addiction.
I think you make some interesting points, and it's a very well thought-out post, but this is the definition of "poisoning the well". You're attempting to preemptively discredit the most obvious flaw in your argument.
There is a massive amount of evidence for the impact on both society, economy and neurology for each of the drugs listed in your last paragraph – and it's these impacts that often change personal and societal perception of risk and reward. Caffeine, at average doses, induces an effect that is comparable to a small cortisol spike – it is mildly addictive, but nowhere near that of an opioid, for example.
Drugs like meth and heroine (and one wonders why you left off fentanyl) are highly addictive and destructive, cause enormous loss of life an an inconceivable scale, and can permanently damage neurological pathways. From what I've read, the impact of hallucinogenics is less well understood... but probably not great.
If your argument is "we like to say caffeine and alcohol are fine, when they're really no different than opioids and meth", well there _is_ a staggeringly enormous difference in the potency and impact of caffeine vs the other drugs you've listed. I do agree with you that alcohol is far more harmful than society cares to admit, however, and that's both well-studied and often ignored.
I hate to write out these words, but you're strawmanning.
The point is caffeine etc. corrupt the mind and cause a person's mental faculties to run in a way they were not initially designed to.
The point is not that these drugs are all extremely harmful, only that they are all harmful. Caffeine and other things get a pass because the "hard drugs" are so uniquely and visibly harmful that they overshadow all other forms of harm.
One could even say that this has tricked us into thinking that lesser drugs like caffeine or canabinoids are "effectively harmless" because they're not causing us to OD or steal things to get another hit or causing visibly psychotic states. But that is not true. We've simply accepted that the harm they due is not worth thinking about (this is subjective, not objective).
The use of the term "corrupt" rather than "alter" or "affect" is assuming the conclusion here. The human mind is not something that always works in the same Platonic perfection in a state of nature. Biological and cultural differences are major factors in what is considered normal at any given place and time.
Some people have conditions that make the way their brains work different than what is considered normal. Western technological culture imposes differences in social interaction and pressures on thinking and required performance that are far different than existed in societies even mere hundreds of years before.
Drugs can be a way to compensate for these pressures and find a way to exist in the world with as much equanimity as possible. And I say all this as a person who avoids all caffeine and illegal drugs, and uses alcohol very infrequently. I'm lucky I can do this and thrive in today's Western culture. Not everyone is as fortunate.
A small percentage of people, like myself, have clearly autosomal genetic conditions that means being 'normal' is just not on the cards. I have to take psychopharmacological drugs just to get close to normal.
Not everyone is the same, there is a lot of variety, what you say could indeed be true for most people but can also not be true for a small minority of people.
hEDS, there is a very long list of comorbidities and I tick off most of them. Not guessing, runs in the family, did a WGS and found the TNXB SNPs responsible.
I tried the no-drugs and being super healthy approach for the vast majority of my life, I look like a pro-athlete, the only reason I started the meds was due to figuring out the statistical possibility of having X things wrong with me was next to impossible without a common cause, and the ME/CFS with brain fog was destroying my life.
I also tried to quit caffeine but that only resulted in very negative effects that persisted for more than 4 months after going cold turkey, that's 4 months being largely housebound and not able to work for that one experiment. I've been at this so long that if you can think of something I've probably tried it - including the healthiest of healthy lifestyles.
Just comparing within my own family most are anti-drugs and anti-medications and their health is an absolute mess. I wish living a healthy lifestyle would be sufficient, I wouldn't have to walk a tightrope of balancing meds, but I don't get that option.
What are your thoughts on people who self-medicate with caffeine due to their baseline ability to focus being reduced (which in modern society is cause for trouble)? That’s the reason for starting caffeine use for many.
My use is also light and fully legal, but personally I’m not sure that this is something that’s so binary. It seems more likely to sit on a spectrum, as most things do, and is largely dependent on the individual due to wide differences in brain and body function. It’s the same reason why the prescription drug that works wonders for one person and do nothing or worse, be detrimental for somebody else. We’re not all identical units of a particular model rolling off an assembly line somewhere, after all.
So I guess I would say that yes, we should be more conscientious of how substances (even those that are common) interact with our minds, but I have a hard time labeling them all as harmful. It’s just too broad of a brush.
I think the main problem is conflation and averaging out experiences to the general population. There are distinct subsets of people who react to things very differently to the others and the focus should be on first finding out if someone is in a particular group.
I do a lot of DIY psychopharmacology, mostly modafinil and amitriptyline, in a successful effort to reduce ME/CFS/hEDS related brain fog. I’ve given modafinil to normal people and they tend not to notice any effects where for me it’s a super strong drug that’ll keep me wired unless I take other drugs to calm down.
I think quite a large subset of human behavior is seeking self medication for genetic anxiety disorders and I think in knowing the mechanisms people can avoid stumbling around in the dark and go directly towards things that work.
Could there be a similar cliff function for alcohol and psychoactive drugs iff used in moderation which may confer to a society an advantage to the detriment of individual health. If used above a limit things fall of a cliff. Abstinence however may also be sub-optimal even if best for any individual.
One of my ex' father triggered a lifelong episode of schyzophrenia by excessive drinking during mandatory military service around age 18-19. So i'd say there are number of triggers
Alternate theory; schizophrenia tends to manifest in men between 18 and 22. The drinking was him self medicating because of symptoms he was experiencing?
Final thesis: schizophrenia was starting to manifest and the drinking was him self medicating, not knowing it was making the schizophrenia worse and causing further harm.
You a joking. Nobody talks about it to not to harm 'suffering minorities' business. However there are researches that show harm from marijuana is significant and likely permanent. It's no better than tobacco. But you'll never see it on CNN for political reasons...
> You a joking. Nobody talks about it to not to harm 'suffering minorities' business. However there are researches that show harm from marijuana is significant and likely permanent. It's no better than tobacco. But you'll never see it on CNN for political reasons...
Two downvotes so far. Any explanation? Can't please everybody, especially Kamala voters.
But my advice: if you value your cognitive abilities, blood vessels health, and I'm sure it's snowballing, stay away from any form of marijuana.
