Mps1213

See this is the problem with debating science with non-scientists. 

“The mass is irrelevant, we're talking about #particles here. Do you want me to give it in moles rather than partial pressure? Is the average temperature the factor you think is missing because it will only skew the numbers further in my favor.”

Of course the mass matters dude. That’s literally what regulates the atmosphere is the mass of it. Which is why I brought up the blanket analogy. Even if you make a blanket with the most hest trapping substance in the world if it’s extremely thin with holes in it (as the Martian atmosphere has) it will not trap heat as effectively as a thicker blanket with a less effective heat trapping substance. 

“ I will attempt to prove your mathematical, physical, and chemical arguments wrong (or more more likely irrelevant) just as soon as you provide some (more).”

You are the one who made the claim that CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere. What is your mathematical, chemical, and physical evidence for that? State sound evidence (that doesn’t fly in the face of established chemistry, physics and math) and you can end this debate. 

“Since you told me I was wrong despite the fact that my arguments remain standing perhaps you are the one who needs to go find a professor so you can make new arguments, or better yet just have them log into your account and debate for you.”

Lol, dude I have taken more atmospheric science classes and chemistry and physics classes than you have even considered taking. I have talked to many professors about this very topic. They all have the same answer. Simply put, it is physically impossible for increasing CO2 concentrations to not have a warming effect on the climate. No since I know you’re going to over simplify this topic I will break it down further. That doesn’t mean that temperature will rise 100% of the time CO2 rises. Because there are other factors, including volcanic eruptions which have a cooling effect. However in a scenario where CO2 and Particulate matter is rising, the temperature drop will be less severe than it would have been if CO2 didn’t rise along side it, or if CO2 dropped with it. You can still be exerting a warming effect even if the temperature is dropping. It’s just the factors that push the temperature to cool are over powering the factors exerting a warming effect. A good anology is pushing against a car. Even though the car will push you backwards, you are still exerting a force on the car. The car would push you backwards harder, if you were not exerting that force. That doesn’t mean you aren’t doing anything in the equation.

So, what I recommend if you want to talk about schooling and saying i need to go. Enroll in the degree I’m enrolled in. Geoscience with a focus on data analytics, but first complete more than half of a chemistry degree and take all the way up to physics 3. then maybe you will have the ability to talk down to me about speaking to professors about a scientific topic. I wasn’t even talking down to you. I was telling you if you can actually disprove this established science, you should have a scientist look at it to make sure it makes sense. 

Until you can provide me with concrete chemical, mathematical, and physical evidence all working in unison that doesn’t fly in the face of established science in each of those fields I will not respond. If you can do that I will give you the email address to my physical Chemistry, my atmospheric science, and my physics 3 professor for you to speak to about the topic. They’d be very happy to have a conversation with you about it. 

Also when you’re talking about thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. You’d be very lucky for a single point on the graph not to span a century or two. So you asking for a graph that shows a release of CO2 before a big jump in temperature is a tall ask. When you see them simultaneously jump, you have no way of proving or knowing which one came first on a 50-200 year time span. It’s borderline impossible on these old graphs. Which is why you see carbon dates for objects spanning 50-200 years for an estimated date. So you’re just trying to abuse the limitations of science to fit your narrative. You’re also just abusing evidence and bending the data. Which is why you can’t show any concrete math, chemistry, or physics equations, to fit your idea. If you can’t do that then you are likely wrong. If you can do that then you better make sure your math is bullet proof. Send it in to a physics of chemistry professor and have them look at it and see what he says. 

“

The density of carbon dioxide is higher on Mars. That is the number of CO₂ struck on average by a photon radiated from the surface is greater than Earth.”

Over simplifying man. Mars’ atmosphere has less than 1% the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. So yes it does have a higher concentration of CO2 in its total mass of the atmosphere but it has a much, much smaller atmosphere. You’re nit  picking and bending evidence.

“Yet science seemed to work that way when you said CO₂ concentration and temperature were joined at the hip and posted a graph (of the same data) with only two variables.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/dansgaard-oeschger-cycle#:~:text=Ice%20core%20data%20from%20the,atmospheric%20CO2%20levels%20diminished.

So it ebbs and flows, like every other part of the atmosphere. 

Yet again you have provided no math, no equations, no laws of physics to explain why the other math, equations, laws of physics are wrong. Until you provide that I will find this debate useless and circular. Prove the concrete math, physics and chemistry wrong. Using the same parameters they have to use, which are the laws of physics. If it’s so obvious it should be very easy to do. 

I know Of and have met him. Back in my days of being on the far right. He’s a known fraudster and has been sentenced to prison for his fraudulent money donations. That alone doesn’t discredit his opinions, but I don’t think he’s someone really worth listening to anymore. I’ve been there and done all that. I was a 3rd degree proud boy before Gavin Left the fraternity and it turned into something bad. I learned my lesson with putting faith in political commentators (not Gavin necessarily) but just that type of person and social square. It usually only leads to negative, whether it’s the left or the right. I got my proud boy tattoo covered and started a new life devoted all of my intellectual energy into science and have left the political stuff behind me. So I probably will not engage with Dinesh’s book. 

Alright like I said I’m not an expert enough to argue about this much. 

However you’re just over simplifying everything and are just blatantly wrong about some stuff. The average temperature of Jupiter is not 24,000 degrees C. I’m not sure where you saw that or who told you that. The average temperature of that planet is -234 degree C. 

Also You’re too smart to say what you judt said about mars man. You admitted the atmosphere is very thin, so of course it being primarily CO2 won’t cause a warm planet because the atmosphere is so thin It has little effect. That’s like saying “blankets don’t help warm you up” and using a piece of paper with holes in it as you example. 

also, again, show me math, laws of physics, equations, etc. that support your claim that it’s impossible for CO2 to warm the atmosphere. Math that is solid enough to over write the many ways of proving it does. You’re doing what’s called anomaly hunting. Where there’s piles and piles of evidence to support that CO2 warms the atmosphere and you’re finding little anomalies and saying “look see you’re wrong.” Even though I’ve already explained that there are also events that cool the planet that can skew data if you’re only looking at CO2 and temperature. Put particulate matter on the graph, put sulfur in the graph. You have to have every variable accounted for, and there are thousands. You’re only accounting for two and think you are disproving something. Science simply doesn’t work like that.

Show me equations, show me math, show me laws of physics that over rise the equations, math, and laws of physics. If you can’t do that, then you’re not doing science and are just anomaly hunting.  

Another thing I will say is that it isn’t just one party of scientists coming to this conclusion. Mathematicians, biologists, geoscientists, atmospheric scientists, chemists, and physical scientists all see that CO2 warms the atmosphere and all have proven it using their methods of science. So you’re not just disagreeing with politicians(who do spread a lot of nonsense about this topic) you’re disagreeing with a lot science in general. You’re disagreeing with physics, not the people practicing it, but the laws of it. You’re disagreeing with chemistry, not the people who practice it, but the science of it. 

That’s a very tall ask for people to agree with you, when you’ve provided no science, math, equations, laws, etc. 

“So let's overlay and zoom in on that data (I'm pretty sure this is the same icecore data your link graphs):”

The first thing I have to clear up is that you’re entirely over simplifying this topic. Of course CO2 isn’t the only cause of warming, so just saying the temperature doesn’t perfectly match the increase in CO2 doesn’t mean anything. There are many events that cool the earths average temperature for certain periods of time. Like large volcanic eruption, ocean circulation disruptions, etc. 

“Carbon dioxide as a molecule would be stable for billions of years in Earth's atmosphere and radiation.”

This would be true if it were in a perfectly stable environment, obviously the earth isn’t perfectly stable. There are constant changing happening, including to small scale fluctuations in CO2 levels. Nothing is perfectly constant. 

“Ironically one of the so called effects of "man made global climate change" will indeed result from increased carbon dioxide, worse forest fires; but not because carbon dioxide causes warming which causes things to dry out a little faster. Rather plants will grow faster which will increase the rate at which dead-fall and brambles build up. While wet areas will see only an increase in decomposition the dry areas (that have always had wildfires) will see more violent fires which means wider fires as faster combustion allows for more water to be boiled off than before.”

This doesn’t really mean anything. The only reason there are more plants is because there is more CO2 in the atm. Which is due to humans, so yes that is still a side effect of human emissions. 

“To warm requires an increase in kinetic energy of gas-on-gas interaction, simply having a modification of the electron cloud energy would be meaningless.”

This isn’t true. That’s only if you are trying to increase heat into an open system. If you close the system off, trapping heat, especially when heat is still being pumped into the system, the temperature will begin to increase without gas on gas interaction. That’s what a jacket on a cold sunny day does. That’s a pretty simply way of breaking down why blankets don’t get you up, they trap the heat. But if you were blowing a hair dryer into the blanket the temperature beneath the blanket would be hotter than it would with the blanket alone or the hair dryer alone. 

“If you could detect the average altitude of origin for the photons leaving Earth in the carbon dioxide absorbance bands what do you think it would be?”

I’m not really sure what you’re asking here or why it is important. CO2 layers stretch a wide range in the atmosphere. And this reflection of infrared light will be occurring at all levels. 

“Correlation is not necessarily causation. From first principles there are always four options:”

You’re right, unless you can prove an action causes another action. It can and has been proven that CO2 causes a warming effect on the earth. 

“Can you think of a way increasing surface temperatures could cause increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?”

Yes, I said it in the sentence you quoted. Glaciers contain CO2, when they melt due to increased surface temperature CO2 is released. that doesn’t mean that the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise. It means that the two are connected at the hip. When one rises, the other follows. They both influence each other. And easy way to disprove the idea that CO2 warms the atmosphere is to find a time in ice core graphs where the CO2 rises sharply, but the temperature doesn’t follow. However it is more complex than that, because you’d also have to find a time where you can prove particulate matter also didn’t have a large pulse. 

and I have no problem admitting that this isn’t my strongest topic. I do not believe humans are the driving force of climate change. By that same token CO2 is considered one of the most important gases in our atmosphere because of its ability to trap and release heat, without it, the earth would be much colder and not very hospitable. You can also look at the planet Venus, that has runaway greenhouse effect 90+% of that atmosphere is CO2 and it’s the hottest planet in our solar system, that isn’t a coincidence. 

I study geoscience, but my real area of expertise is pharmacology. In the field of environmental science, my area of expertise is meteorology and the history of climate changes. Like I can give you 25 examples of severe climate change. That doesn’t mean I’m knowledgeable enough to combat every claim you make, that also doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I trust the data given by the IPCC. They don’t even claim the climate is anything to panic over yet, if you read their full reports which I do. There is a very strong consensus on the mechanisms for CO2 warming the atmosphere, even people like Stephen Kunin who argue we aren’t the driving force, or at least there isn’t enough certainty in the data to make that claim, agrees that we have had a warming effect on the planet. He was a physicist before his transfer to climate sciences. So trust the physics that are out there for us to read, and I don’t think it’s as easy to disprove as you’re making it out to be. 

For example, when I first learned about how CO2 works in my physical chemistry class. It took probably 35 minutes of math to explain why this happens, you have provided no math in your rebuttals, it requires math to prove or disprove physical properties of particles, especially when dealing with heat transfer. If you can find a way to disprove it mathematically then I will value your statements more. 

Are you asking for contradictions within the Bible? Or contradiction to common knowledge? 

I mean of course the major contradiction within the Bible would be that it’s a mortal sin to change gods word, when there are 33,000 differences between different bibles. If you’re asking for a contradiction in the form of the Bible contradicting itself within the same texts then there are a couple examples.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5

with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

Just two examples. Now I’m sure you’re going to do what all Christian’s have to do to make the Bible make sense. You’re going to begin bending the meaning of words and passages in the name of interpretation or metaphor. The real problem I have with the Bible and religion in general, is that if you can’t take words literally then they have no special meaning. Sure you can extract meaningful life lessons from the Bible, but you can do that with almost every work of fiction. Breaking bad can help you extract that hubris and ego will cause your downfall. The odyssey by homer can show you the same thing. 

Now if you’re talking about contradictions to common knowledge you can point to Job 38:14 that says “the earth takes the shape of clay underneath a seal…” what other shape does clay underneath a seal take besides flat with bumps protruding out of it? you can also refer to the many times that the Bible calls the earth a circle. And never refers to it as three dimensional.

I have not read this book and likely won’t because it’s of no interest to me. I just want a clarification. Are you claiming that blacks in America don’t present good education? Are you saying that blacks don’t learn as well? if you’re saying either of these things, what is the supposed cause of this disparity you’re claiming exists? 

I respect you and consider you a friend, but you can’t just say climate change doesn’t exist. There are so many examples of climate exchange throughout the history of earth. We can have another debate on that topic if you like. I don’t even believe humans are the driving force of climate change. It’s impossible to say it doesn’t exist though. 

What do you want to know about drugs? We can have the conversation here. I don’t really want to recommend any drugs, but I can paint a very clear picture of all of them and allow you to chose what you’d like to try 

Man I don’t think that humans are the driving force of climate change. However I am a geoscience major and currently work in the field of environmental health. You are simply wrong about what you said about CO2. It is physically impossible for CO2 not to warm the atmosphere. You said something about the laws of physics, so let’s talk about it. 

I don’t feel like re typing all of this so I’m taking this from a previous debate. So if anything sounds out of context it probably is. 

Or how about this, what drugs are you interested in? I have a forum thread called “drug education though pharmacology” or something to that effect, I’ll tell you anything you want to know and can make “recommendations” that way. I’ll also tell you how to be safe with them. I have all night so ask away. 

I find it pretty irresponsible to recommend drugs to people I don’t know. Just cause legally that could cause some problems if you are irresponsible and end up dying, I’ll talk to you about them though. 

What drugs have you tried? I can give you an idea on similar drugs or other drugs I enjoy. 

And for the record, I do believe you are intelligent. To me that mainly just means you aren’t brain dead and dumb. I don’t think you’re far above average if at all, but I also don’t think you’re dumb. 

How about we do the survey this way

“2 part question:

Part one: do the people on this site see RM as an intelligent person?

Part two: do the people of this site believe he is as intelligent as he thinks he is?” 

how is that? That will answer both of our questions. 

I understand this is a debate website, and you’re going to debate on the things you don’t know about. However, instead of just debating for the competition, especially against me, you were trying to hard to make it seem like you are just as knowledgeable as me in a topic that you clearly aren’t. If you had the ability to say “look he knew more about the topic I tried” I would probably have no problem with you. Yet you do the opposite in every debate you lose

And also you have given me zero reason to believe I need to “shut the fuck up and drop the matter” coming from the guy who pretended to be an expert on drugs until the second round of our debate where you feel apart, started crying, and reporting votes. 

Actually I have a perfect example of a marker for intelligence that you do not have. “Usually when people are in the presence of an expert in a topic, they shut the fuck up if they’re not an expert themselves” 

That is something you have never shown the ability to do. You also have shown a level of insecurity unlike just about anyone else on this site by reporting votes, claiming you’re never debating again (then debating what two days later?), telling people  they need to shut the fuck up (while simultaneously saying you don’t care about what they’re saying) etc.

That type of behavior is why people insult and laugh when you talk about your supposed intelligence man. Not because you’re not smart, but because you often act childishly when things don’t go way or everyone on the site isn’t bowing down to you. A prime example is you trying to get me in trouble with mods for my comment earlier, if you were so confident in your Intelligence  you wouldn’t feel the need to do that. I have never reported anyone for anything, never reported a vote, never blocked anyone, etc. thats all insecurity, you could tell me I know nothing about pharmacology, that I’m a fat gay idiot, whatever you could say would literally never make me feel the need to report you. Yet you feel that need constantly. Thats not a hallmark of intelligence in my opinion. 

So you’re essentially saying if someone says you’re not as smart as you think you are that they’re low to medium IQ? Or if they’re saying that it’s because they have low to medium IQ and don’t like you? What if they’re more intelligent than you, don’t like you, and don’t think you’re intelligent? Is that just a complete impossibility? Is the only possibility that you have a high IQ? If that is the only possibility, what makes you think you’d know, or have the courage to admit, that you don’t have a high IQ? 

I don’t think I have an exceedingly high IQ. I just have an obsessive mind, I actually literally have diagnosed OCD. So when I find something interesting I spend most of my life learning about that thing or engaging in that thing. Which is the only reason I’m able to discuss pharmacology at the depth im able to discuss it. It’s not because I was born with a high IQ. Im not convinced you were either, I’ve met a couple people who I would genuinely consider a genius in my time as a chemistry and geoscience major. Whether that be professors, PHDs etc. not a single one of these highly intelligent people ever thought it necessary to state they believe they have a high IQ. Their work just showed it. From all the work I’ve seen from you, I am not convinced you are in that league of intelligence. You just seem to be a person of average intelligence. Now I’m sure you will say I’m saying that because I don’t like you, and I don’t, but I don’t like a lot of people I know are smarter than me. You have never shown anything to me or the rest of this site that makes people stop and think “holy shit that dude is smart.” 

You aren’t interested in that idea because you know for a fact everyone would say you’re not as smart as you think you are. 

to RM: well I’m not saying you’re not intelligent. The better question for this conversation would “does everyone think RM is as intelligent as he thinks he is” 

Rational madman has lost the only debate he’s had with me. He since blocked me and refuses to debate with me again even though I’ve offered it many different times. And he turns around and calls me low IQ lmao. Can’t even beat someone with low IQ in a debate, must mean you have pretty low IQ. I have no worries about what he says or claims. I just like messing with him because he always reacts like he does. 

“When we killed sixty million people in the 20th century we knew the shape of the Earth and the composition of the stars, it didn't save us.”

Wanna talk about moving the goalposts, lol. I never said science had any sort of impact on that type of stuff. What I said was that if we don’t have science we don’t know anything about scientific topics, like the stars and astronomy or pharmacology, or physics, or biology, or chemistry, or biochemistry. If all we did was think about it, and not collect data then we would have all sorts of wild theories about it. Full stop. No need to randomly bring up killing people when we are talking about what science does. 

And no saying science comes first over philosophy does not mean we need to have the rafters built before the foundation. That makes no sense. If we did not collect data and just attempted to be philosophical about everything we learn absolutely nothing. What can your philosophy tell you about the psychopharmacology and the effects of the drug MPTP? It can’t tell you anything. But when you learn what that drug does to the humans consciousness, you can then become philosophical about what consciousness means when you have a way of radically changing it using it a chemical. Instead if you just tried to philosophize about the effects of the drug, you wouldn’t even know what parts of the brain the drug is effecting to cause the effects it does. So the philosophizing you’d be doing would be in complete ignorance to what is even happening. 

“Any law with majority support should be passed and stand

The reason debunking myths is important should be pretty obvious. Even to someone who attempts to think philosophically. Saying false things is not something that should formulate opinions. But it does, especially on the topic of drugs, proving that these statements are myths is important for educating people on how to use drugs safely, and for explaining that people shouldn’t go to prison for using drugs. it’s also important for making a sound argument as to why they should be sold legally in a regulated climate. 

For example the myth that most people who use drugs like meth, heroin, cocaine, or crack cocaine are addicts, is an important one to break for this discussion. Because evidence shows that the vast majority of people who use these drugs are not addicts, yet those people face the same risks of imprisonment and death due to contamination, as the people who do steal, abandon their children, and abuse people for their addiction. If we don’t start by busting those myths and instead try to explain to people why their philosophy is bad, the argument will get nowhere because they can still cling onto these myths as the basis for their argument. In a scientific conversation the facts need to be established first, before we start using philosophy. If we did it the other way we wouldn’t know anything about anything. We would just have wild theories as to what stars are made of, or wild theories as to the shape of the earth. Facts need ti be established, then the philosophical conversation can be had. 

Also i think you’re overplaying the idea of a debate on this site. While some debates can be political in nature, it’s hard to vote against the evidence and logic I have which is why I’ve never lost a debate on the topic that I actually participated in besides one. The other loss I have me and the opponent agreed and he thought he was pro so I just forfeited every round because it was a waste of time. The debate I did lose I miss typed the title and my opponent took advantage of it. 

Yes I’m for legalization. I’ve studied pharmacology and neurochemistry for years at this point. I do make a “moral” argument if you can call it that. I also base a lot of my argument around pharmacology and busting drug myths. So if you’d like to have that sort of discussion we can. I have another form called “drug education with pharmacology” or something like that. We can have the conversation there. 

Would you be interested in having a debate with me about drug legalization? you can look at my other debates and see how I handle them. Only one I had an annoyed style with was the one against Mall because he’s a fool. 

“Idc anyway, it is becoming obvious to me people don't get how to read or measure things.” 

Kind of case and point right there. I wasn’t insulting you I was just making an observation, just like you were here. So don’t get fragile on me RM and start screaming mommy. 

come debate me on heroin legalization and see if your high IQ and critical thinking can win a debate against me. 

I’m not insulting you, but is it possible you’re just not as good as debating as you think you are?

I’m a horrible at debating , I’m just an expert in one topic which is why I can win debates. 

And RM all I have to do is go to the comment section of your little rap battle to find a bunch of passive insults as well, so if your gonna call in rule enforcement on me you should probably make sure you’re not doing the same thing.

Rational madman, come try and redeem yourself against in the debate I currently have open. 

Also i could possibly seeing you passing a test with a higher grade than me if the test covers a bunch of useless garbage that will never be necessary or explored outside of the test. 

One reason I think you have difficulty is that you seem to try and force yourself to speak with a diverse vocabulary. I think if you spoke more plainly, directly, and concisely you’d have a better time. 

Ah I see, my bad.

So I I wish I could put pictures here so you can see the graph. They used three different doses. Each of them proportional to the potency of the drug, so the cocaine doses are much much higher than the heroin doses. The heroin doses are 1.1ng, 2.3ng, and 4.5ng per infusion. The cocaine doses are 41.6nc, 83.2ng, and 166.4ng. The cocaine/heroin mixture are those same doses just combined for each level. 

The cocaine alone at the highest dose was self administered an average of 19 times over 6 sessions. The sessions were 60 minutes long for each dose. 

The average number of times heroin was self administered at the highest dose was around 9. The average for that same metric with the combination was about 5. 

This isn’t surprising as heroin lasts much longer. Depending on dose it can be anywhere from 2-6 hours of feeling the effects. I’m sure the rats tolerance began to grow as well. So in terms of proportionality cocaine was self administered on average  2x more than heroin and 4 tomes as much as the combination. Which shows dopamine isn’t the driving mechanism for compulsive redosing and it is more complicated of an issue than that. It has many variables, dopamine certainly being one of them. So a test I would like to see if doing this same thing but with fentanyl compared as well. Because fentanyl also has a pretty short duration. I also want to make clear this does not prove in anyway cocaine is more addictive than heroin or vice versa. It just shows that when given no other option besides self administering drugs, the shorter acting drug will be administered more often. 

The only reason rats self administer it more often is simple because cocaine doesn’t last as long. So the implications this has is that drugs with a longer duration will require for less compulsive re dosing, which could lead to less addiction or dependence potential. That’s why many drugs today like Adderall and methylphenidate are prescribed in extended release formulas. The drug lasts longer, doesn’t need to be taken as much, and therefore theoretically will lower addiction potential. Of course there are downsides to XR formulas as well. With things like amphetamines it can suppress appetite for longer which can be good if someone is trying to lose weight, or can be unhealthy. So there good and bad to XR. 

Thanks for the kind words. 

One of the more interesting studies I’ve come across recently is about the self administration of heroin, cocaine, and a mixture of heroin and cocaine in rats. There is a common misconception that dopamine release is powers addiction, this study inadvertently disproved that hypothesis. This was a very well done study that impressed me with its thoroughness. They took readings of rat brains after administering each of these drugs and saw that the release and inhibited re-uptake of dopamine was the highest among the mixture of heroin and cocaine.

This should be obvious considering their pharmacological properties. Heroin causes a pretty significant amount of dopamine to be released from the dopaminergic host cells. It goes onto the receptor and can stay there for a while due to the agonization of the mu-opioid receptor. Cocaine doesn’t release quite as much dopamine, instead it blocks the transport of dopamine. This will cause the dopamine to stay on the receptor longer, but cocaine is very short lived. In my experience it lasts no more than 30 minutes, sometimes less. 

In this study it showed that rats self administered cocaine far more often than both the mixture and heroin alone. If dopamine was what powered compulsive self administration it should’ve been the heroin and cocaine mixture that was redosed more often. While it is fairly obvious the reason this occurs is because cocaine doesn’t last as long as heroin, it was still very interesting to see that cocaine was self administered far more often. 

Then there is another study I’d like to mention, we can discuss both in further detail if that’s what you’d like to do. This one is more interesting to people who aren’t deeply interested in pharmacology. There is a drug called Ibogaine. It’s a naturally occurring substance and one of the most complex molecules on earth. It’s so complex that we still have a difficult time synthesizing it on a commercial level. Ibogaine has an incredibly complex Pharmacology. It is an NMDA receptor antagonist like Ketamine, which as been used to treat depression. It is an SSRI which has also been used to treat depression. It is an alpha-3 beta-4 nicotinic choline receptor agonist, which has been shows to help people quit smoking and is one of the effects of the anti-depressant Wellbutrin. It is also a 5-ht2a receptor agonist which has been shown to help with addiction and depression as well that’s what LSD and psilocybin do. It is a dopamine re-uptake inhibitor which is also a mechanism for treating depression. 

The two most impressive studies done with this drug have shown an incredible efficacy for treating opioid addiction. This is what most people know Ibogaine for. But that is just the tip of the iceberg with this drug. It also releases a substance called GDNF, Glial derived neurotrophic factor. This substance has been shown to be one of the only things discovered that rebuilds dopaminergic neurons. Why is that important? Well that is what Parkinson’s is, Parkinson’s destroys these neurons. So it is very possible that ibogaine could be a treatment for Parkinson’s. The best, or worst depending on who you’re asking, part about ibogaine is that it isn’t potent. It has actually been used medicinally in Europe before to treat some mental illnesses, in low doses. It is cardio toxic , so these large flood doses people take when they go overseas to help treat their addiction quickly, can be dangerous. It seems like if we would remove this substance from schedule 1 in the US and begin doing human trials on its medical abilities something very useful could enter our medicine cabinets to treat a lot of things. 

What other drugs are you curious about man? Any drugs you want to try that you’d like to know more about? 

I’m extremely curious as to what your evidence will be. I enjoy debating with you, so I’m looking forward to it. 

Let’s start by defining the definition of ‘more harmful’ 

And what drugs you think are more harmful, then cite your evidence for it. 

Do you have any evidence to support that some drugs are more harmful than others to society? Or were you making the arguments just to ask hypothetically? 

Also what exactly would the metrics be for “more harmful?” 

If you think that society is harmed more by certain drugs, what would your evidence be to support that claim? 

No, I think they should be taxed at a flat rate. There’s no evidence to assume that any drug will do more harm than tobacco or alcohol. I don’t think there is compelling evidence to 1: even show that the drugs you mention are more harmful to society than just about any other drug you can name. And 2: any reason people should have to pay more tax simply because they enjoy a drug other people consider too harmful. 

Care to learn anything about any drug?