This story will explore the evidence supporting the "best" drug hypothesis. I will endeavour to carefully define what I mean when using "best" and "drugs". These terms must be scrupulously and meticulously adumbrated or explained to avoid the reader confusing my definition with, for instance, a common colloquial use of the word which is not suitable or even coherent for this examination of humans searching for the "best" drug and why it is. I suspect several will win "best" awards, only at different things. Like the olympics we may have many winners, for each measure of "best" - Unlike the olympics steroids will probably not win here.
My definitions will be anthropocentric and mine, but I intent to phrase all technical jargon in ways that maximize clarity and are accepted in the field we are investigating - psychoactives. I will not be borrowing from the slippery semantic slopes that taint and are stigmatizing our very starting word!: "drugs" - a word that people use but often inaccurately or misleadingly.
"Drugs" means semantically, paradoxically and therefore confusingly, both a medicine and a poison for example. So before I can even attempt to explain what the perfect drug would look like molecularly, or feel like experientially or phenomenologically, or whether such a molecule could even exist, not in practice but in principle I must ironically first dispense with the word itself!