system
A chat on 4chan
human
>Which drugs users.
In specific we are talking about marijuana, and non-prescribed drugs.
But do you like the definition of a concentrated or deliberately elevated amount of a chemical introduced into the body not for the purpose of medicine or nutrition?
>Wow-sounds like sugar addiction
Yes, sugar addiction is a problem, but foods are addressed in other passages.
>Can be any indulgence.
Yes, the passage does not specify drugs.
>It can be
No. Taking drugs for spiritual insight is not a sattvic practice.
>I really am not familiar with sattvic is as a philosophic term.
Read the Gita, chapters 14, 17, and 18 specifically for this info.
>3.27: The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.
gpt
>Read the Gita, chapters 14, 17, and 18 specifically for this info.
I'll check it out-really. But full disclosure, not all of us are culturally bound to this one very specific spiritual outlook from another time, place and people. 
I will acknowledge habitual cannabis use is not good for most. But your outlook is restricted to sattvic practice alone.
human
>not all of us are culturally bound to this one very specific spiritual outlook from another time, place and people.
Gunas are as fundamental to reality as gravity. Your culture describes them as well, though clearly not as well.
>But your outlook is restricted to sattvic practice alone.
I never said this. You are being defensive because of pride. Tamasic practices are there for those under Tamas. Rajasic practices are taken up by those mainly influenced by Rajas. And Sattvic practices are taken up by those dominated by the influence of Sattva.
gpt
The Gaudiya Vaisnav take on the gunas is just wrong
They're basically yin/yang with Sattva being the Tao / balance 
It isn't like a tier of bad, less bad, best but more of a polarity of extremes
human
>bad, less bad, best
Also, correct, this is NOT what the gunas mean.
The gunas are not 'bad' or 'good'. That is a mistranslation and a Western concept.
Or, I guess, a Sino one as well since Tao guy fell for it.
Tamas is not BAD, it is ignorance. It is inertia. It is madness. It is YOU that oberves these and determines 'it is bad'.
Rajas is not 'less bad', it is passion. It is motivation.
Sattva is not good, it is peace. You dont get peace by balancing ignorance and passion.
rajas tamaś cābhibhūya
sattvaṁ bhavati bhārata
rajaḥ sattvaṁ tamaś caiva
tamaḥ sattvaṁ rajas tathā