First context: I have had the (some would say) unique chance of having tried the classical psychedelics and other classes of medicines in my life, that aren't necessarily psychoactive in the pure sense, like antipsychotics, delirants, and onwards.

Therefore I have a better appreciation for how unique people's biologies can be, sometimes expressing emotions or qualia that are often chemically induced by those agents simply by having inherited other traits, while otherwise it makes me question if people's atypic behaviour is caused by a certain class of substances that they might be secretly taking as a hobby, thinking it improves their quality of experiencing life by some measure.

Having spent time on the DMT-Nexus chat but also in my ever-evolving view of what behavioural projections arise from people's internal subjective experience, I gained a sense of assessing people's interactions by not only their philosophy, moods, etc... but also their pharmacology. It might not be a far off deduction using simple language that people on different substances interact (or don't) differently. (e.g. people experiencing irritability might be less aggreable?)

Secondly, if there were large groups of people with such habits (pathologies), it makes me wonder how it would affect society! Surely normal people in the search of spiritual growth and personal virtues will tend to gravitate away from self-reinforcing vicious cycles of substance (mis)experimentation.

How are such people kept isolated so as to not interfere (even economically) with peaceful, sensible agents? If your worldview is that they take care of themselves, my question becomes: couldn't it be possible that if enough of them live together, it becomes a sort of "way of life", giving rise to whole societies, organized groups, so on... taking the shape of whatever ideological label containing the word "narc" one might place on it?

So there goes the hypothesis. My conclusion and possible request for feedback from the community might be proposed to be situated on the lines of: how hard is it to be aware of such issues for people who have experienced and noticed them? what is their attitude towards them (protective, helpful)? for people with experience in trip-sitting, is it hard to learn how users of different substances interact, and do these skills make you think about society when you are not at a festival?

Thats the neat part! They aren't. Check how alcohol is used in western societies. Things we do in groups become benchmarks for behaviour in a sense, so experiences regarding substance abuse surely do affect societal values.

Imo you have a very clear view on how pharmacology does affect society.

Its a difficult job helping people deeply stuck in downwards spirals induced by substance abuse. I've been a victim of addiction and resulting psychological issues myself, issue being, that when you're in such a situation it takes a whole lot of PAIN to actually seek help and admit your mistakes. The drugs do help with that aswell. Add a group of friends with similar issues and boom.

During rehab i met alot of people who didn't make it back to a "normal" life - Or say become OK with themselves. Only 10% make it the first time, even when being therapized for 6 months.

I have to like someone very much to lend a helping hand. It's bound to alot of stress and high risk of disappointment supporting someone get out of such a situation. I like to give some markers, talk open and honestly about the issues im seeing - this convo is often not happening in their friend circles - and see where that leads. It's not like we can take these people by their hands and just drag them out of there.

The real healing comes from personal insight and reflecting on the past.

I'd say having these skills also adapts to day-to-day life. By gaining insights in the humans behaviour you gain generalized tools to work with others. It's like learning to mediate with and between others and during all of this you got to ask yourself questions if you find certain dislikeable behaviours within yourself aswell.