This is how "drug education" has failed us.

The status quo is "drugs are bad, m'kay?" and "drinking is fine, everybody does it, just don't drive when drunk".

The way forward should be understanding the following:

  * Let's use the word "drug" for any compound that alters your state of mind.
  * Everybody is different in how they respond to a drug
  * Most drugs are dangerous when consumed to excess
  * Most drugs can impair your thinking and should not be used in unsafe conditions
  * Some drugs can be dangerous due to adulterants (e.g., fentanyl)
  * One should be mindful in how they consume drugs (not under peer pressure, not appropriate time/place, etc)
  * If you are going to use a drug, treat it as dessert rather than a meal

  * Addiction is possible/likely when one consumes a drug frequently in a short amount of time, or by consistent use of it
  * Addiction can be overcome but it requires serious effort and can be *very* discomforting
  * The first high is often the "best", and trying to capture that again can lead to addiction
  * If you think you have a problem with drugs, you probably do, and should seek help in addressing your problem
  * If you are an addict and you break your addiction you cannot return even once to using again

I'm sure there's room for improvement there, but it's a start.

I think this is a great list. I would point this out.

> * Let's use the word "drug" for any compound that alters your state of mind.

> * If you are going to use a drug, treat it as dessert rather than a meal

Consider that your definition rightly includes things like antidepressants, but people for whom antidepressants are working should take them regularly (which I assume is the distinction you're drawing with dessert versus meal).

Thanks for the input! Yes, that definition should be for the context of "recreational" use.

The cultural roots of drinking are deep, and while I agree that alcohol enjoys a seemingly protected status, I don't know that blanket labeling everything "drugs" is a step forward.

I think this kind of abstraction is what gets people into risky situations. I'd rather we raised awareness across the board about the benefits and repercussions of the popular substances of choice. Some general rules of thumb are good, but less compelling than direct information about the ways things can go wrong, and ultimately not useful in the moment of choosing "do I partake?".

I think most people understand that some drugs are dangerous and some are not. But the drug conversation has been so dishonest for so long, that people struggle to assess what is real/true, or what to take seriously. I don't think people will take seriously anything that collapses mind altering substances under that single umbrella.

I think there are strong arguments to be made that psychedelics - especially psilocybin - deserve to remain in a category of their own. To associate them with "drugs" broadly seems counterproductive at a time when we're finally seeing research dollars pour into the field, and the effects of these compounds doesn't seem comparable with other recreational drugs. And no one gets addicted to psilocybin, but there are some very real risks that users need to know about.

I could have done better on the initial definition -- the key context is "recreational" use.

It's incredibly important that we collectively recognize that alcohol is a drug. More so, recent research shows that it has zero health benefits. We need to understand the extensive damage it does to society -- not to demonize or prohibit it, but to give context to when pearl clutching happens about other drugs.

Likewise, people should understand the history of the War on Drugs and be aware of the real reason they came about (spoiler: to oppress their users).

It is true that psychedelics can have incredible therapeutic value, but they can also be a lot of fun (I certainly consumed them in that context when I was much younger). Cannabis can be added to that list, as well as others.

So yes, let's be entirely honest about the subject (which I'm trying to do). We can't wish them away, so let's deal with it like rational adults and minimize the risks of harm.

> alcohol enjoys a seemingly protected status

Well, the US tried Prohibition. Drunkenness went down and crime went up.

I'm not arguing for prohibition. The point was more that despite its ills, society does not treat people who consume alcohol as harshly as society treats people who consume other substances that are arguably no worse, or possibly less harmful.

Not a value judgement, just an observation about current attitudes around mind altering substances.