> you're just debating what semantically constitutes a ‘drug’ No, I wasn't at all. I simply introduced a bit of specificity into the language used, but the po

> you're just debating what semantically constitutes a ‘drug’ No, I wasn't at all. I simply introduced a bit of specificity into the language used, but the point I sought to clarify was related to your lack of allowance for the importance of culture and for the ability of culture to change. There is an extensive list of human behaviors whose prevalence has changed dramatically over the last 1,000 years as cultural values have changed. There is no reason to assume that its impossible to have similarly changing cultural views (species wide) of drug use. Its simply absurd to say that drug use will always be with us. It may, it may not. What do you know of our future culture? Especially if we start to more aggressively genetically engineer ourselves? The semantic argument you've raised trivializes important issues. There are substances and behaviors which alter mood which no serious person has suggested be made illegal (such as aromatherapy, or going for a jog). Surely you aren't assuming that future experience altering technology would necessarily be illegal, physically addictive, or damaging to the body?