it's not even close
now ur generalizing...sugar is specific
there arent a wide variety of sugars? sugar isnt specific at all tbh
sugar is way more d***-like than weed is
how so
d*** is such a stigmatized term that it's kinda impossible to have a productive conversation about it
and for that reason I understand why you'd wanna say something relatively harmless like weed isn't a d***, so it doesn't get looped in with s*** like heroin
but I also think that's the wrong way to go about it because it's fundamentally dishonest when you really get down to it
You can get addicted to sugar
You can get addicted to sugar
you can get addicted to a lot of things that arent d**** too tho
how so
mfs be tweaking and need they sugar need they soda need they candy
take a fat f*** candy they spaz
u seen them crumbl diabetes drinks s*** crazy dawg we live in a society fr 🙄
d*** is such a stigmatized term that it's kinda impossible to have a productive conversation about it
and for that reason I understand why you'd wanna say something relatively harmless like weed isn't a d***, so it doesn't get looped in with s*** like heroin
but I also think that's the wrong way to go about it because it's fundamentally dishonest when you really get down to it
rawww i dont even disagree
mfs be tweaking and need they sugar need they soda need they candy
take a fat f*** candy they spaz
u seen them crumbl diabetes drinks s*** crazy dawg we live in a society fr 🙄
what is a d***
mfs get dependent
u can get addicted to it
u get withdrawals
if its not physically addictive its not a d*** to u?
maybe but i think if youre going as far to call regular food things d**** because it has an effect on the mind and body its kind of losing the plot
I had this thought too, but justified it like this: There are plenty of foods that have chemicals that have some sort of immediate, perceptual effect, no matter how mild. Stuff like the stimulants in raw chocolate, capsaicin in spicy foods, caffeine in tea.
There's also foods that provide some sort of fuel (or potentially deficit) for your brain just because of the nutritional make-up, but they themselves don't have any sort of psychoactive effect
Idk if I'm explaining my thought process well. Does that make sense?
im happy to get folks thinking
without addictive design principles our economy would crumble
Babylon conquers Babylon. The ouroboros must continue to feed so it can continue to grow, so it can continue to feed, so it can continue to grow, and so on ad infinitum
what breaks this logic?
LSD not a d*** to u?
i keep a calculator at my desk 🤑🤑
i got the culvers addiction
I had this thought too, but justified it like this: There are plenty of foods that have chemicals that have some sort of immediate, perceptual effect, no matter how mild. Stuff like the stimulants in raw chocolate, capsaicin in spicy foods, caffeine in tea.
There's also foods that provide some sort of fuel (or potentially deficit) for your brain just because of the nutritional make-up, but they themselves don't have any sort of psychoactive effect
Idk if I'm explaining my thought process well. Does that make sense?
yes but i think its still possible for something to have overlapping qualities with psychoactive d**** and not literally be a d*** itself
i have a friend who claims to have been addicted to it b4
mushrooms is a d*** to you or no