• homes@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The intent of the provider is irrelevant. It’s about how it’s being used.

    For black market hormones, that’s HRT and is obviously medical. i’m not sure I would call the performance-enhancing athlete recreational because they’re not doing it to get high. That’s also medical, but shitty medicine. like I said, it’s not about the source, it’s about the usage.

    With your caffeine example, that’s clearly medication. Using a hallucinogen in that manner? That sounds recreational to me. although psilocybin is in the experimental and pre-clinical stages for being used to treat epilepsy, which would clearly be medical.

    edit: for those who might object to my classification of spiritual pursuits as “recreational”, let’s just call it “recreational (or other)”, but its sure isn’t medical.

      • homes@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        exactly. lots of recreational drugs are being tested for medical uses. cannabis is famously being used for a broad range of medical uses.

        but my point is that I can take CHEMICAL-X for its intended purpose or for my own purpose, and there’s a difference between the two. one is medication, and one is recreation-- and yes it’s possible to take it for a mix of both reasons.

        whether I get it from a pharmacy or someone at a party is irrelevant (for the context of this conversation).

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ok, but a lot of research chemicals’ intended purposes are opening your mind, and them doing anything helpful is a bizarre off label usage that happens to work.