3 ms·
It is simplistic labeling, and I am generalizing from what I've seen. I agree it starts from escapism in many cases. From what I have witnessed it's escaping bo
by qq4 5y ago
It is simplistic labeling, and I am generalizing from what I've seen. I agree it starts from escapism in many cases. From what I have witnessed it's escaping boredom and/or pain, two things that life has much of. It's a dangerous attitude (obviously).
I'm not arguing your second point, but suggest you consider that some drugs are more difficult to quit and are therefore more addictive than others. I'm arguing that people who have problems with drug addiction will likely add more legal drugs to their stack rather than curb use.
- eurasiantiger 5y agoSo, do you want to ban private car ownership, because some people are prone to speeding? Do you also want to ban everything except heterosexual copulation for the sole purpose of procreation because there are sex addicts? Shall we do away with video games, playing cards, dice and horses because some people have problems controlling their gaming and gambling behaviours? How about making it illegal to own pets because some people neglect theirs? The same goes for having children. Are we banning all food except reconstituted, fortified, protein—fat—carbohydrate sludge because some people have eating disorders?
- qq4 5y agoI didn't say anything about bans or making things illegal. I don't mind too much that there are drug addicts, speeders, sex addicts and frivolous games. I think you're letting emotion blind you since it seems you're not actually reading and understanding what I write.
- eurasiantiger 5y agoI was trying to show by several analogies the faulty logic in ”some people have problem with X, therefore X must not be allowed for all people”. Of course, your mentioning of polydrug use could be just a neutral observation, but why then use it as an argument?