nope not at all. d**** arent good or bad. they just exist and can be either. which if youre realy a doctor, you woudl know. I dont know why you think i think, some neutral thing is good or bad or has no downsides.

You were the one that’s brought up how if somebody is spiked with d**** and go into psychosis, they deserve preferential treatment than somebody who did d**** voluntarily, which is putting morality on d**** use, at the expense of their treatment and health. not me.

and I knew this is the angle you would go lol.

there are theories that describe the effects of certain d**** as a temporary psychosis. absolutely. im not disputing that. but the “psychosis” these d**** produce, is different than the psychosis people go through thats triggered by them, or that’s triggered by somethign else. and yes there are edge cases where that line gets blurry, its not a marker of intelligence to point that out. but that is what it is

like my position on d**** is from a harm reduction perspective, so people who use them can minimize the harm they can cause, because they can be so dangerous. It’s like you deliberatly misunderstand the things i say about it.

tbh if you read what Im really saying about them, instead of just me shooting jokes, theres no way the conclusion you should get is, this person thinks d**** are always good. loi

they are so dangerous and can ruin so many lives. But the approach society has towards them and the morality attached, just makes the dangerous parts of them worse.

It’s about purposeful intent. If you kill someone while you’re on d**** you took on purpose, you’re liable. I’m not sure how this is a difficult concept to understand.

If somebody d***ged you against your will and you don’t have capacity to make decisions due to being intoxicated, you are not liable. It’s really not a hard concept.

the difference is very clear. It’s not a hard concept

nobody intends to go into psychosis. so there no purposeful intent in either situation. assuming the person who killed the person, had a psychotic break, and werent just on d****. there is a fairly clear distinction, despite there being edge cases.

Guys I know the cover art is actually very wocky, but the music is good

Nobody intends to doesn’t cut it. Drunk drivers don’t intend to run someone over either. You know the risks of what you’re getting into. You chose to do d**** in a situation where you put someone else at risk.

where this a***ogy falls apart, is because the odds of going into psychosis is so low and so many other regular behaviours everyones goes through, also can cause it.

So you would have to, using that logic, apply it to the multitude of other causes. like someone who pulled an all nighter and had a psychotic break. or somebody who had a psychotic break from alcohol. these were also things that can cause psychosis.

drinking and driving, has a very high chance of causing damage.
the decision of someone taking mushrooms or smoking a joint, is infinitely less likely to not only cause a psychotic break, but a violent one.

and regardless of all of this, even if you wanted to pin the blame of psychosis on somebody because you think taking d**** is immoral, the treatment for the medical condition, is the same.