No, but if you explain what you're looking for, I'm sure one of us could point you in the direction of the writers who most fit the bill, save you a lot of shopping around.
Though in thinking about it, wouldn't be the worst thread to create.
Now I want to see you actually high on drugs.
That explains literally nothing, but if you're... An interesting peson like that so to speak, I wouldn't touch any leafs either. Who knows what the trip would do to you
Wrong.
Depends on definition. Colloquially, 'narcotic' tends to be used to mean 'mind-altering drug', which nicotine is recognized as such by the CDC and AMA, can't speak for other parts of the world. For that matter, caffeine qualifies. And marijuna always qualifies as well. It does alter the mind.
Oh, the evidence is overwhelming, at least in the case where it's smoked. All forms of smoke inhalation increases risks of cancer- such that most nations now recommend heavy ventilation and avoiding certain plants when burning incense due to the documented harm on the lungs, including some documented cancer risks. Though incense is more connected to COPD and asthma risks.
Really? I wasn't aware of any chemical in cheese that directly interferes in brain function.
Look, when discussing chemicals and how they affect the body, the definition always includes a silent 'directly* and/or abnormally**' before the 'affect'. Otherwise, you are correct, and could have used oxygen as the word in question, instead of cheese.
Did you not read the rest of the post where I went into actual detail?
See, now, you could have started with that and made this a respectable conversation. But you chose not to.
I don't care about face. Yours or mine. I care about accuracy of statements. And when taken as a whole, I consider my statement accurate. Other than apparently the WHO (which I have absolutely no respect for as an organization for reasons that go deep in Rule 8 territory to discuss here) changing definitions like it's wont to do when they don't serve its current bullshit.
I dunno, deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting my points in order to turn this into a game of semantics rather than actual discussion?
Depends on the chocolate, but yes, some chemicals common in chocolate have (exceedingly mild) mind-altering properties.
I know Ghirardelli's is my go to antidepressant. Specifically the 72% cacao dark chocolate.
I mean, I have an oft-repeated rule against discussing specific medical diagnosis and treatment for ethical reasons, but if it's working for you?
It's part of an overall topic. Taken together, I think my point is clear. A quick and dirty, followed by the nuance and elaboration.
Fair, I guess it wouldn't hurt to provide my own citation.
Now you are, I'll grant you. But you started by trying to claim 'cheese' is a narcotic according to my definition. Which is untrue and I find it very hard to believe you didn't realize that from the beginning.
Sadly? Not a narcotic. Doesn't 'dull senses', not illegal so doesn't fit under that definition, and certainly no opioid.
I also have actual medication, but Ghirardelli's can certainly turn a bad day around because medicated isn't nearly the same as cured.
A lot of it is the lack of body language and tone . I freely admit that in internet conversation, I have a hard time picking up sarcasm in American English sarcastic comments generally entail some degree of body language transmitting or signaling