Are you saying then that you in no way can sympathize with those who marginalize themselves. I mean it is a pretty fucking intimidating system. Either way, without the support of some form of majority, even with ideas and action an individual working as such, has no way to challenge the system and hope to get anywhere unless he/she is willing to become some sort of martyr or Leonard Peltier or something.

P.S. Side note

I just watched a documentary about Miami-Dade - Cocaine Built that fucking city. It wasn't even a problem until the cocaine wars started. The Federal Reserve Bank that kept Cash for the Miami area had more cash than all other Federal reserve banks combined. (Huge Auto industry, Retail industry, property and many of the skyscrapers were funded from coke in the late 70's until 82-83)- makes me think that we should keep drugs illegal but not enforce it. (It was in the Billions that went into one city fucking nuts--too bad it got bloody after a few years)

I never said that. In fact, you only agreed with me because you thought I said what you supposed I said.

I will never marginalize drugs or the the people they affect.

I'm only asking questions and parleying thoughts here. Still, people who abuse drugs largely marginalize themselves. Those who don't may succeed. Those who do drugs may succeed but how much did they restrict their conscience and artistic ability with those drugs? Or did they not and succeeded because, not in spite, of those influences? Were the drugs the ones that made them successful, not the actual person?

Riddle me, Batman.

The people at gun rallies are usually a few steps below trailer trash. Therefore, guns should be illegal.

Man, I love living in this isolated bubble so safely cushioned from reality that we call MrBubbles land!

No actually I only agree with you because I like your name. No in truth I think I've discussed post with you before. I'm not so sure about the drug thing and artistic talent. I imagine the same question could be asked about someone who eats healthily versus someone who eats chips all day; one would assume that diet has a lot to do with possible performance and if that is true than would not drugs constitute a diet in some sense. I mean Caffeine is a drug and it has become almost a diet staple allowing for faster, if not always as focused, response times. Maybe drugs, should be incorporated regularly therefore enhancing certain characteristics that we so desire. Like taking Omega threes as an anti-inflammatory, or extra protein and complex carbs in hopes of creating muscle mass. I wonder if drugs (I mean 'natural' peyote/mescaline, shrooms, marijuana, coca leaves, opium poppies) would constitute a diet more so than simply as an intoxicant.

Yeah I imagine that whether a drug helps or hinders could be either way though, probably being dependent on a person's proclivities.

-although, if that were the case than that would indicate that drugs actually don't do anything except possibly magnify whatever tendencies an individual may have in the first place meaning that the actual drugs aren't an issue at all.

 Edit: Oh sorry for the supposition but sometimes your writing is pretty cryptic.

Don't apologize for not understanding my cryptic wording, my point is that everyone should be allowed to think for themselves.

For the bolded: aren't we all drugged? Where do you draw the line over drugging for performance (or life) versus drugging for performance (or work)?

Where is the moral line drawn?

x

Damn you! Damn you! Last time I argued about the morality of a culture was with that Adolf Hitler cake post.
Lemme say my Miss America Answer "We should legalize every single drug and then educate, allowing individuals to make choices for themselves. In doing so, we could take a fresh look at all drugs without simply placating our problems by placing the users into a penentenary and pretending as if the users are some aberration. By educating and identifying other problems behind addictions and abuses we could then reduce the demand for such illegal drugs and if not entirely eliminate it, use it within what is safe for society(no violent crimes)-as the individual should have freedom over his/her own life."
The Morality aspect is hard because, personally since I grew up post Enlightenment thought (as most of us under 300 years old have) Morality has always appeared as relative, and constricting. It only goes back to that Lockean question on how many freedoms we are willing to surrender in order to make a social agreement with society.

Where should the moral line be drawn? Well I think we could figure that out if we had a clear view of drugs once again, maybe legalized them all, educated all people, see what happens, maybe for 20 years and go from there.

You do know that drawing the moral line somewhere is an impossible question right?


Moral Line: Doesn't Harm Anyone else Phsyically or emotionally (I know we could say "who is to judge what is 'harm', but for the sake of this debate that is what i would consider maybe an absolute moral within the confines of civilization) This is all I could reduce it to.

If we wanted a system more moral not taking advantage of people, then we would have to eliminate many currently legal things and in so reducing freedoms.

Rocketpig: Morality is such a bitch for me. I wish I knew 'wrong is wrong, right is right'.

what do you think?

Ain't life a bitch.

Yes.

I mean if you can demonstrate valid sociological and physiological evidence that a drug should be outlawed because it is dangerous, then that is perfectly fine.

Otherwise it should be legal or at least decriminalized. Furthermore, a lot of drugs are only unsafe because the aren't regulated. MDMA (ecstasy) itself, for instance, really isn't overly dangerous. However, the fact that so few ecstasy pills are 100% MDMA makes the drug dangerous since you never really know what you are getting. Lack of regulation has made this drug way more dangerous than it would be otherwise.

 I would totally agree with you on the regulation thing, except that it would necessitate a competent regulatory body. I remember that Cox-2 inhibitors vioxx and celebrex both increased the rate of heart attacks dramatically and still got passed. Vioxx supposedly contributed to 27,000 heart attacks. That drug should have never been passed through the FDA with such horrible health side effects. Or at least you would hope it wouldn't have. Yeah pure drugs would be less harmful in the recreational arena though.