From your other posts in this forum, I got the impression you would be knowledgeable about matters pharmaceutical and/or chemical (can't recall precisely what it was you said - I presume you are involved in a related industry or scientific field), and so when you were less than clear (your mistake or mine), I engaged with you. Why? Because there are so many misconceptions and so much nonsense brought up in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a drug related thread.
Yes I am, im a drug specialist. Its habbit to dumb down things so the lay patient can understand, a habbit but a neccessary one. That was my mistake on the part of 'spiking' but It was the easier option considering the situation, if you want me to go into detail I shall, though it would be difficult as I do not know how they make this stuff for street use... trade secrets i suppose.
Alcohol is good for you in moderation for example red wine and whiskey have cardioprotective properties. Sometimes the cardiologists will actually prescribe whiskey/wine for their patients. Vodka is good for the GIT and beer is an excellent diuretic, medical professionals wont tell you this because patients never listen. Many times I tell a patient "take one at night", the next day they come to me angry claiming the medicine gave them severe diarrhea so i ask them what they do and they say "i took 3 at night". So generally its a rule we reserve the maxium doses and the details to prevent this.
Cocaine is and still is the best local anaesthetic, all our local anaesthetics are derived from modifying the basic structure of the cocaine molecule, unfortunately modern medicine has been unable to provide an equal or superior local anaesthetic. In the old days it was used for ENT sugery and the patient could have the surgery awake it was that potent in its purest form. Its also excellent in constricting blood flow and thus blood loss is minimal with cocaine use and adrenaline does not have to be used in conjunction. Unfortunately cocaine binds so strongly with receptors in the brain its physically damages the tissue hence why its been discontinued in medical uses, and thats the mechanism from which the severe insomnia and addiction comes in and this damage is almost impossible to reverse.
Smoking has its possitives as well though its subjective to the patient, ever wondered why some hospitals have a smoking section in the cardiothoraic wards?
NO medical professional will agree to this and I myself will never say it to any patient that I deal with. Smoking has its positives, for example there will be a brief period of time that it will improve asthma after all the irritation is done, as the smoke dries out the lung the patient will be less subject to attacks because the lung will no longer be able to hypersecrete mucous to block the airways, but after that point it goes downhill from there. The nicotine stimulation can provide some positives as well, such as weight loss and appetite supression however this is circumvented by habbitual responses to the act of smoking such as a 'after meal smoke'. Also patients under severe cardiovascular stress they are ordered to continue smoking as the stopping of smoking can put the heart into disarray and exacebate the condition but this is when all hope is lost, but these are the most desperate attempts of defending smoking. One would not be in that situation (arguably) if they didnt smoke in the first place. The problem is the impurities when you smoke a ciggarette, the carbon monoxide, methanol, ethanol, cynaide ect from the chemicals that are used to treat the tabacco and the actual paper that encases the tabacco. This is also the same problem when smoking cannabis. The higher heat from the smoke damages the lungs (not to mention the tar). Again dont quote me on this for smoking.
For cannabis, it used to be used as an antipsychotic (now when we say antipsychotic we mean a substance used to treat any mental illness not just insane loonies as most people think) it used to be placed in a solution and the patient would drink it. In other words the THC was extracted and formulated into an acceptable dosage form. It was used to induece the appetite for patients suffering from diseases that cause wastage of the body for example TB.
A lot of drugs have what we call 'off label uses' where the drug is used for things its not intended. Metformin is a good example of this, it can be used for weight loss and can be used for treating polycsytic ovarian syndrome yet it was made to manage type 2 diabetes.
When it comes to LSD, you must remember although "naturally found" the thing you consuming isnt natural at all, also natural doesnt mean good for you. You get 25 micrograms of LSD but the thing you taking isnt 25 mcg is it? thats because it contains certain things to aid its absorption into the body. This things are known as excipients and are probably more important that the drug itself. They buffer the pH in the stomach, or they allow penetration across the gut wall, they have 100s of different uses. Now when these things are not pure (99%) the impurities can be harmful. I mean if you taking something that contains 80% of the desired compound and 20% impure mercury based impurities then you going to be in trouble. These guys that manufacture the stuff dont care about this they care about getting the best 'high'. Some preparations are 'cut' with ether. Would you normally smoke ether or drink it ? no. So its the same as spiking the substance. Other common vehicles they use is ethylene glycol and methanol as they easy to obtain and easy to use and formulate with. No pharmaceutical chemical company is going to supply unknown people with chemicals, so ask yourself where they get it from? I've analysed street drugs that contain benzene and paint thinners and other nasty indrustrial grade stuff where purity isnt important.
Now when it comes to addiction there is no such thing as 'least addictive' as that depends on the patient. Some patients can get addicted with a single use, it depends on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties with that individual's body. An addiction on a physiological level is the need to stumulate certain receptors (google it I can type a thesis on this), now it depends how strongly a substance binds to that receptor as the binding of a ligand (drug) can cause morphological changes and that will lead to how one reacts to a substance. Saying "its the least addictive" is the same as you going to a penicllin allergic patient and claim "it doesnt kill me". Hence the "least addictive" arguement of LSD is invalid. Anything that alters the mind is something to be cautious about, secondly they may not physically get addicted to the substance but rather the 'high' itself which is just as dangerous.
If you know of a drug called sugars the treatment is extreme, you have to use methadone to stop the addiction to sugars because sugars binds so strongly to opioid receptors it damages the brain. This overstimulation of the receptors can be so potent in its gross form that the patient can die without stimulating the receptors, this is the worst form of addiction there is and its not the banned substances that only do this. It reaches a state where the patient's life depends on the substance of abuse. For those of you who are reading this going "I dont know anyone on LSD that had this problem" and that reason is you have not been exposed to such a great deal of patients like me. Ive seen people on all forms of addiction, they are dead or living in a sewer some where. There usually isnt harm in trying a substance out it wont ruin your life but remember if you choose to walk down this road you must be able to deal with the outcomes. There are just as many "i took it im successful now" stories as there are dead bodies, so in essence it boils down to the patient taking it.
Sign up with Google
), is a bit pointless to have gone to the effort of mentioning, as anyone knows this. 
