> But none of those drugs will result in the long-term change that you’re looking for.
Sorry to be blunt, but this is clearly the morally infused cliché of "healthy people do not take drugs because drugs are bad mkay.". Cliché which seem to automatically give people the status of the most responsible person in the room for some reason.
Well I'd like to give a rebuttal. Saying no to drugs is saying no to the risk of taking the drug, that is true. But it is _also_ saying no to the potential benefit.
If, for the sake of argument, someone took that risk at 20, but had some incredible epiphany and radically changed their life for the better during the 30 years following the experiment, you can't say in good faith that it was _bad_. You _have_ to take into account that a better quality of life was exchanged for that risk. And in my opinion, refusing to see that is not automatically the responsible position, even if it is always portrayed as such.
I’m in my early forties. I have bipolar disorder bad enough that I’ve seen the inside of a locked psychiatric unit more than once. (I’m also an ex-FAANG staff engineer with multiple degrees and have helped make things worth many billions of dollars if you need a second label to offset the first).
If mdma hadn’t helped me connect with people and get over my social anxiety, I would have killed myself by now and you simply would not be reading these words.
I am more aware of the costs of drug misuse than 99.98% of the people reading this but, still, I don’t think I’d be alive today without first fixing the problem of being so terribly unable to talk to people.
Sorry to be blunt, but this is clearly the morally infused cliché of "healthy people do not take drugs because drugs are bad mkay.". Cliché which seem to automatically give people the status of the most responsible person in the room for some reason.
Well I'd like to give a rebuttal. Saying no to drugs is saying no to the risk of taking the drug, that is true. But it is _also_ saying no to the potential benefit.
If, for the sake of argument, someone took that risk at 20, but had some incredible epiphany and radically changed their life for the better during the 30 years following the experiment, you can't say in good faith that it was _bad_. You _have_ to take into account that a better quality of life was exchanged for that risk. And in my opinion, refusing to see that is not automatically the responsible position, even if it is always portrayed as such.