Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   【Ξｎｉｇｍａｔｉｃｏ】:misskey: (enigmatico@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 22:59:17 JST 【Ξｎｉｇｍａｔｉｃｏ】:misskey:

   Western's 80s and 90s society was far from being perfect. But compared to how our society is today? It was heaven!
   
   And I wonder if part of it was because of the anti-drug (recreational drugs) campaigns. I mean... Is it a coincidence that society peaked during these years when the effects of drugs were made public and people was made aware of them and suggested not to use them? And then as soon as these campaigns started disappearing, people started getting hooked on them again, and now it's like the 60s all over again?
   
   You might think it's stupid but I don't think so. I believe there might be a cause-effect relation here. And let me be clear, social media is also a big part of it as well. It's also a 'drug' after all. It works like one.

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 22:59:16 JST iced depresso

     in reply to
     @enigmatico lol no drugs are largely coping mechanisms. though the drugs usually get harder over time (partly as a function of war on drugs having stupid rules like grading criminality by amount and encouraging superdrugs)
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 23:00:29 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     @enigmatico there's a lot of other stuff that happened between the 90s and now, like political correctness (which has gotten significantly worse), a complete collapse of variability in the tech sector, atomization of social fabric etc
     
     everyone is now ironically on centralized services but trained not to tolerate each other.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 23:05:31 JST iced depresso

     in reply to
     @enigmatico so what?
     
     the opioid epidemic happened under the watch of war on drugs and authoritarian medicine. they gave us 1,000% morphine prescriptions (fentanyl) when people just bought laudinam (1% morphine) on their own. so the only difference between a good drug and a bad drug seems to be how much money pfizer made on it.
     
     there's also a high overlap of the rug of choice and unmedicated underlying conditions (ex. a lot of stimmy users have AD[H]D), as well as a general coping trauma response (ACE scores.)
     
     drug regulation has largely given us overpriced patented bullshit, which can do all the same or worse bad things to you (ex. SSRIs.)
     
     light drug use is harmless. heavy drug use is because people's lives suck and a lack of servicable off-ramps.
   • Embed this notice
     【Ξｎｉｇｍａｔｉｃｏ】:misskey: (enigmatico@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 23:05:33 JST 【Ξｎｉｇｍａｔｉｃｏ】:misskey:

     in reply to

     • iced depresso

     @icedquinn@blob.cat 'Coping mechanisms' that alter the way your body works. More specifically, it alters the chemical structure in your body. And this alters the way your body, including your brain, works.
     
     I don't say this, this is common knowledge.

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 23:07:10 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     @enigmatico war on drugs in general is heavily a product of racists using it as a proxy (it was illegal to ban mexicans and chinese, so they went to attack their inebrients of choice. tobacco being a white drug, got a free pass.) coupled with rockefeller investing heavily in medicine and then investing in laws to force people to buy his medicine investments.
     
     governments never cared about your health.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 23:33:23 JST iced depresso

     in reply to
     @enigmatico you are not understanding, obviously.
     
     it was never about science. aslinger wanted power, and brokering with racists got him it. he negociated with them to ban opiates and marijuana to harm chinese and mexican labor competitors in the USA. in exchange they funded campaigns to get the drug agency made so he could hold an office.
     
     the science came later and was always secondary to the drug bans. i mean are you not at all aware of the marijuana propaganda? in the 60s they said you'd kill your neighbors and turn communist with just one joint. it wasn't for another 50+ years of research until they actually managed to find any negative indications. they tripped over hundreds of legitimate medicinal uses and kept censoring it because they violated the narrative.
     
     whenever the science agrees with the narrative, sure, they hold it up and celebrate it. when it says ketamine is actually highly effective for palliating severe depression (c.f. https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/living-well/ketamine-for-treatment-resistant-depression-what-you-need-to-know/ ) there's an infinity of "oh well you know but the misuse, and we just need more research guys" to ensure it stays banned.
     
     its not until they can patent it that suddenly its no longer at risk of being misused somehow
   • Embed this notice
     【Ξｎｉｇｍａｔｉｃｏ】:misskey: (enigmatico@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Nov-2024 23:33:25 JST 【Ξｎｉｇｍａｔｉｃｏ】:misskey:

     in reply to

     • iced depresso

     @icedquinn@blob.cat So you're telling me that when scientists are telling you that certain chemicals mixed with the chemicals in your body can cause a certain reaction, it's because those scientists are racists? So now chemistry is a racist science? It doesn't make sense, sorry.
     
     I'm not going to throw an argument about the government caring about anyone (what government though? America is not the center of the world), but any government does care about money and there is going to clearly be a higher amount of spending in healthcare if you have to treat more people from long term effects caused by drug abuse, let alone treating overdoses and other stuff. Because that's not exactly cheap, when instead of 50k people with lung cancer caused by smoking now you have 500k (just as an example). Of course they are going to care about their money going there because people abuse of those chemicals and they are going to want to avoid it.
     
     And that's just medicare. Think about the social consequences as well.