3 ms·
Mostly-non-toxic and non-habit-forming drugs that have the potential to change your values are dangerous to the status quo, and therefore morally reprehensible.
by peterwwillis 10y ago
Mostly-non-toxic and non-habit-forming drugs that have the potential to change your values are dangerous to the status quo, and therefore morally reprehensible.
Alcohol and cigarettes, toxic and dangerous to users and bystanders, don't change your values, and enable control of a population.
The only reason this continues its farcical conflict in modern societies is the moral majority shout louder (and have more money) than potheads do.
- bogomipz 10y agoMarijuana while generally not physically addictive can be habit-forming though. How else do you explain stoners? I'm not bashing pot but I know people who were different people before adopting "pot as a lifestyle." I'm drawing the distinction here between recreational user and non-medicinal multiple times a day daily user, with "stoner" being the latter.
- peterwwillis 10y agoYou're right, I misspoke, it is habit forming and non-addictive.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago>the moral majority shout louder (and have more money) // Yet, the very rich seem to be doing drugs like nobody's business. Half of the stories you hear on TV couch shows seem to be "well all us celebrities were high on cocaine, again, and blah, blah, blah". If you wanted to round up drug users you could probably just do a pat-down at the BBC and supplement that with a dawn-raid on the top 20 media personalities of the moment. I think there is a genuine risk that widescale and easy access to certain drugs can damage a country's productivity, which in turn damages the elites' profits; personally that seems the most likely reason for most drug laws, mixed in with a not-insignificant amount of protecting people from themselves, for sure.
- kelseydh 10y agoOur drug laws should approach psychedelic drugs differently from the rest. I strongly believe this.