It feels like a low-quality article in which the author is writing about a scientific topic but has no qualifications or expert knowledge (and therefore making wrong conclusions due to their lack of understanding around the research they cite). I don't understand why people feel the need to publish such blogs.
Agreed. It's an absurd dose assumption. According to Erowid, a common dose is 30 mg to 75 mg.
I spent some time reading papers about ketamine before, and it seemed that all the negative side-effects (like bladder damage) are only ever observed in extreme cases where someone takes massive, abnormal doses for an extended period of time. I think it is not relevant to the vast majority of recreational users.
Definitely on the high side, but I'm guessing they mean "chronic abusers" rather than just "user". The serious ketamine addicts I knew when I was younger took the drug every single day, and multiple times during the day. I think that figure seems right, since a single large line can be north of 200mg.
I know: it's insane that someone would do that much ever, let alone every day, but I assure you that it happens.
>I'm guessing they mean "chronic abusers" rather than just "user".
It's a critical distinction to make. With everything we put in our body it is often 'the dose makes the poison'. The way the article is now, it's something skin to propaganda saying that beef causes death because there are some 600kg McDonalds addicts having heart attacks
Tolerance buildup is such an economic pain in the ass innit? Abuse vs use I guess. I know a lot of people who do ket but very few who do lines of it.
I haven't had good experiences with being a tranquil horse but I used to smoke a lot of weed when I was younger, I still smoke but much less and it's crazy how non linear it is, I subjectively feel like I'm probably 1/3 as high on average as I was five years ago but I spend maybe 20x less on weed.