drew1492

Benzodiazepines (Xanax, Valium, etc.) are basically that - GABAergics with very high LD50. They're positive allosteric modulators, rather than direct agonists, but the pharmacological action is similar. But benzos wouldn't be a good alcohol substitute - they're often described as less "fun" than alcohol by people who use them recreationally, they're more prone to delusions of sobriety (possibly because it's missing the other non-GABA effects of alcohol that help us gauge drunkenness), can be very addictive, and there's some link between long term benzo use and modest elevation of cancer risk, especially brain cancer.

This is not true, or partially true at best. As far as I'm aware, current consensus is that psychedelics are not a causative agent in psychosis or schizophrenia in the absence of predisposing risk factors. 0.5-1% of the population will develop schizophrenia, and for these susceptible individuals, a psychedelic trip can be the event that triggers the full-blown disorder. But so can any other significant psychological stressor, like the death of a family member or friend, or going off to college alone. But in general, psychedelic use is not correlated with mental disorders, in fact there are some studies that suggest that psychedelic users may have lower rates of depression, anxiety, and increased empathy and openness.

oh, here's an interesting one I hadn't seen before: https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/aop/article-10.155... "Lifetime use of psychedelics is associated with better mental health indicators during the COVID-19 pandemic"

But even if psychedelics were a causative risk in some mental disorders, shouldn't we as a society entrust adults to determine their own risk tolerance? We don't ban alcohol because a certain percentage of drinkers will develop alcoholism. We don't ban smoking even though it is a (or even THE?) leading cause of preventable death in the US. Why should other drugs be any different?

Kava's nice but getting the desired effects can be a bit hit-or-miss. It's milder and more of a clearheaded serene/sedate effect, tastes like dirt-water, and can be a bit expensive, about on par with craft beers. But it's non-toxic, non-caloric, and non-addictive. I enjoyed kava for quite awhile before quitting after realizing that it was exacerbating my seasonal allergies (it seems to have a pro-histaminergic side effect). For awhile it totally filled the glass-of-wine-or-beer-to-unwind-at-home niche (I actually think its effects are superior for that purpose), though I still drank/drink alcohol in social situations.

GHB, for one, is said to be all the best parts of alcohol with less of the downsides. It's still addictive and super illegal though, has the stigma of being a "date-rape drug", is maybe more neurotoxic than ethanol (excitotoxicity may be more in play), but definitely less toxic for the rest of the organ systems, and non-carcinogenic.

Kava, a beverage made from the roots of the piper methysticum plant, is broadly similar to alcohol, but milder, more sedate, non-addictive, non-toxic, and legal almost everywhere in the world. It's expensive though (only grows in the tropics), tastes like dirt-water, and takes a bit of work to prepare.

English neuropharmacologist David Nutt has been reportedly working on a synthetic less-toxic alternative to alcohol for years, but it's unsure if anything will ever come of it.

That comment is using net worth, not yearly income, as the yardstick.

The word "toxic" is overloaded and there are at least two main types of "toxicity" - acute and chronic. Caffeine is indeed more acutely toxic than cannabis in the sense that one could die from taking waay too much caffeine at once, but no deaths from THC overdose have ever been observed. Caffeine however seems to be almost entirely non-toxic chronically. Aside from addiction, regular caffeine intake doesn't seem to harm one's body or mental functioning in any way. Frequent habitual cannabis use has more negative effects, such as impaired memory.

Spending down your principal may not be a smart idea though, especially if one is in good health. It runs the risk of them outliving their savings. Spending 4% or less of your assets annually is sustainable indefinitely, statistically speaking.