Why did the government crack down so hard on personal drug use? Doesn't this serve to imprison more and more people...

Easy way to arrest black people and hippies in the 1960s.

You should really be more specific. Some parts of this are technically correct when dealing with different, high-addiction-rate drugs, but anything where you say "drugs" as one big category makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

That shit sounds like something straight out of dare, and I can tell you never tried drugs yourself. You're mixing misleading with wrong information and put the most negative spin possible on everything.

Does this apply to all drugs that people often get arrested for? I can see this applying to hard drugs such as meth, crack, heroin, etc., but what about more 'heady' drugs such as marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, DMT, etc.? I'm just using psychedelics as an example because they're criminalized drugs that aren't necessarily all about pure pleasure or that lead to physical dependence in the way heroin is

Yes, everybody knows how drugs work. What's your point?

Prohibition doesn't work. Period. All other arguments are irrelevant.

>You obviously never witnessed any of this or faced a criminal pointing a gun at you just to get his fix.

And why are drugs so expensive, you dumbfuck?

To get nigger criminals off the streets, liberals are actually right about this. People in the ghetto who take drugs are also prone to doing violent/organized crime so it's not a coincidence that the "war on drugs" resulted in sharply declining crime rates.

Its my spare time my man.

>potent drugs will hijack your brain's reward system beyond all control while simultaneously making your brain insensitive to the pleasure it provides.
A few drugs do that, after a long period of daily dosing. Most do not do that even then. A single does never has that effect, except in the case of an overdose with a neurotoxic drug that can cause near permanent brain damage, but even then the mechanism is not what you described.
People who use drugs non-pathologically normally don't suffer noticeable negative effects.

>no dose will EVER feel as good as the first one
Unless you literally fry your brain, that is plain wrong. Many drugs actually get better over time for many; heroin would be one example.

>Where's the pleasure? There is none.
Even long time junkies still get a pleasurable high if they can afford a high enough dose. People who are merely maintaining normal are simply too poor to afford a high anymore due to their increase tolerance and probably reduced income.

>In this incapacitated state, you are likely to hurt yourself and/or other people. You can even kill yourself or commit murder.
More likely maybe, but far from likely in an absolute sense. Psychedelics are some of the safest drugs known. Far safer than basically anything else you can do in your free time.

>stimulant psychosis is the same as a psychedelic trip
okay man, your neuroscience mentor has it all figured out

How can I be specific when the OP wasn't? He just said "personal drugs". What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Obviously, every drug is different and not all drugs will cause the extreme effects like the ones I described. They have distinct pharmacodynamics.

However, that is how social prohibitions work. The point of banning "all drugs" is not because they're all equally dangerous, but because they're the road to danger. The prohibition takes place before you will ever get to experience any of the worst effects. If a bridge is out, you don't put a warning just before the hole. It's useless to anyone speeding at 60 mph. You put warnings miles before it ever becomes a problem.

In practice, nobody actually cares about any of these laws; after decades of "drug war", you can still buy drugs off any random street, and the drug production and trade alone generates more violence than individuals would if they were on drugs.

But that doesn't mean taking random drugs should just "OK", even if they were legal and produced by upstanding citizen chemists. They're "OK" if you're "OK" with high-risk behavior involving your fucking brain. That's never OK in my book.

I'd prefer it if we could study the drug effects so we could see if there was a pattern of usage that was safe. That way, it stops being "high risk" behavior. Until then, it's not OK.

No it doesn't apply to all drugs. See above.

The chance of becoming addicted to weed after the first dose is relatively low. Smoking tobacco is a riskier proposition. The drug effects are similarly less potent.

That's a problem because people who take drugs tend to be highly impulsive, thrill-seeking individuals. I've seen the progression from weed to cocaine take place many times in actual real life. It's hard as shit to get out of that lifestyle.

Because they're rare due to being illegal. Criminal overhead also inflates price. Criminals also seek to monopolize their "territories".

because if your spending money on street drugs you're not spending that money on """"their"""" prescription drugs™

I'd totally buy Teva heroin.

That argument is nonsense.

Idk in west, In Asia people are very scared to drugs due to Opium war
Smuggling drugs could get you death sentence in most Asian countries

>People who use drugs non-pathologically normally don't suffer noticeable negative effects.

Wow what are the odds of that happening?

Pretty much every drug user I ever dealt with were extremely impulsive individuals who couldn't just "use it once in a while". They ended up addicted to the point they required the help of our center.

This isn't just people who willingly came up to us and requested help, either. I actually personally know several people who progressed from fucking tobacco to weed and then heavier drugs. One of them even started GROWING weed. They were all impulsive as shit people who literally thought there wouldn't be any negative consequences for their behavior.

I don't believe you for a second that most people will simply "use drugs non-pathologically".

>Even long time junkies still get a pleasurable high if they can afford a high enough dose.

That's a pretty big "if" there. How likely is it that the guy whose life sucks so hard he uses cocaine to numb the pain will continually have the money to sustain the escalating dosage requirements?

That guy is going to fucking rob people of their hard earned money for his fix. He's likely to just turn up dead.

That's just a fucking retarded argument. I'd much rather reputable pharmaceutical companies, with actual laboratories, produced the drugs people take, than violent criminals.

This.

>I'd much rather reputable pharmaceutical companies, with actual laboratories, produced the drugs people take, than violent criminals.

>I would rather my heroin be made by professionals at megacorporations rather than afghani farmers

I mean, you're not wrong, but then again pharmaceutical companies tend to get away with drug pushing much more than anyone else does

your arguments are DARE-tier garbage, my friend. its obvious you have no idea what you're talking about so it would be best to just stop posting.

>Wow what are the odds of that happening?
The overwhelming majority of drug users doesn't develop an addiction. I guess you never see those in your center, because why would they show up, if they don't have a problem with their use? If you look up statistics for heroin, you'll find that only 25% of users become addicted at one point in their life, and of those 70% or so quit on their own without help when they don't want to deal with the consequences of their habit anymore.

>I don't believe you for a second that most people will simply "use drugs non-pathologically".
You don't have to believe me, that's easily googled and common sense. I know plenty of people who do drugs recreationally and not one developed problems because of them, quite the opposite, it helped some of them deal with some issues.

You should try drugs on your own, so you actually know what they feel like and can understand why people would want to take them, and what the ACTUAL effects are, rather than repeating overblown propaganda.

>Politicians aren't evil, they are, on average, merely not smart enough to think outside the box, nor principled enough to do what is right in the face of opposition.

Nail on the head.

To protect their own dealers from other competitors.

Why not?

Kek, bullshit. Most of Silicon valley micro dose LSD.

>Doesn't this serve to imprison more and more people?
How naive are you? This is literally the point.

Beginning it was because of industrial interests
Then it was to fuck African communities even more
Then it was because the politics and radical ideaology of 60s counter culture was an enemy of the state.
Still that way, and the propaganda worked very well, so the squares now in charge of governing actually believe it.
It's all part of a long standing indoctornation, ignorance, and complacency strategy
If the state can't keep the masses, and especially the educated masses indocornated it loses power, libertarian(not right "libertarianism" which is better described as individualistic authoritarianism) and equalitarian politics are an existential threat to the powers that be, and are suppressed through going on a century of extreme propaganda by the corporate media, and it's congressional representatives, where it has been censored through idenitarian rhetoric as the common enemy, and these ideas have been obfuscated, every since wilsons red scare, and continuing today, these views are given no air time in mass media or in education. Most people cant even understand the concept of land that isn't owned. Anarchism is and chaos are synonyms to most people, who upon hearing anarchist or libertarian ideas, believe they are hearing Marxism. Any critizism of capitalism is communism. The propaganda works so well many proles belive environmental protection and labour-wealth equality is a dirty socialist boogie man that wants to award others for their hard work, while they work and the fruits of their labour are kept by the property owner.
States are by nature authoritarian and unrepresentative of the people they govern. Last thing they want is some Berkeley kids to have fun on cid and see through the bullshit. The state depends on the will of the people to survive and they must be kept complacent.
Also sending people to prison is big industry and that is protected the same way I just described

>dude just let your population stifle and degenerate due to rampant drug abuse LMAO

Yeah!

>he thinks that Americans and their hedonistic culture can be left to their own devices and not become a country of addicts and degenerates

This guy gets it, but socialism and communism really are the solutions to capitalism.

>I know whats best for people even if they don't

Go find a nanny state somewhere in the middle east where your moralistic fantasies "work"

>he thinks if drugs were to become legal 100% of everyone including yourself would be drug addled retards.

Go to Amsterdam, and see how much of the population are regular smokers. Pot heads are seen as worse in Amsterdam. You do not understand anything about what you are saying.

You are a literal coward.

Lol you actually believed the propaganda video
That only happens with extremely high and frequent doses of drugs like crack/cocaine, meth, and amphetamine sulfate.

Other drugs do no such thing, MDA/MDMA do it to serotonin, which is why I know a lot of phish fans that cannot feel emotions at all.

And weed can to it to your indocannabinoid system, which isn't a huge deal, but can still permanently fuck your system up, trust me.

Lysergiamines and most triptymines are as safe as milk: pretty much and drug can be used safely with harm reduction and common sense.

But why should doing these thing be illegal? Why should people have their lives ruined for bamboozling their own brain chemistry?
No reason at all, it's all illegal to keep the ducks in a row and for no other reason.

Libertarianism is a child's philosophy. In an age of rap music and casual sex people need laws to keep them from killing themselves in search of ecstasy.

>lights up pipe
>its in my spare time bro

>Casual sex makes people DIE

I'm the childish one? Why can't you just let people live their own lives

>dude why don't you let people fuck corpses lmao

Because corpses can't consent and at that point you're infringing on someone else. Are all your arguments this retarded?

Liberterian socialism.
Not so much communism, but people should do communes if they want to.
I'd describe myself as a collective-individualist anarchist and ecological-mutualist. There are ways to do markets that are equalitarian, and sustianible, I think.

ayyyy my man, I'm not sure about the market part though.

>consent before death.
>what is a will

Not that user, but come now senpai. Post-mortem consent is already a thing.

This is 100% delusional edgy bullshit that ascribes to conspiracy what is the result of simple indifference and bad incentives.

>Lysergiamines and most triptymines are as safe as milk
They can trigger HPPD and PTSD. Milk doesn't do that.

Well it would require means of production accessed by mutual aid, and they would have to be allocated pragmatically and in a way that insures sustianibility, using the earth system sciences and network science, a centerilized power shouldn't hold be allocating mutual aid, it should be a confederation of small municipalities networking with eachother to insure everything goes right.
It's kinda like bookchins libertarian municipalities and social ecology X mutualism.
I'm not sure how what is being produced would be valued though.
And of course communism can exist along side markets, for products that are post scarcity, like food.

HPPD isn't so bad, and usually calms down after a while, for me anyways. Now persistent dissociative hallucinations sound nightmarish, but that isn't caused by thoses drugs it's caused by deleriants, or schizoid disorders

PTSD happens from a bad experience, nothing to do with psychedelics inherently

Still no reason to be illegal, I should be allowed to snort chlorine if I wanna

>HPPD isn't so bad
Sometimes it is.
>nothing to do with psychedelics inherently
They can cause it, which means they are not completely risk free.

>widespread meth usage from the 30s to 50s
In the US? You must be thinking of benzedrine use, which was d-amphetamine, not meth.

>Kek, bullshit. Most of Silicon valley micro dose LSD.

But we don't though? I live here and never see that.Maybe some fringe programmers, but that type of thing is supremely rare.

>t. Example

Orly?
O rly?

www.globalissues.org/article/162/some-examples

scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=english_hontheses

dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/corporate-media-shadows-of-the-1960s/

drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx

www.prwatch.org/topics/alec-exposed

hope.journ.wwu.edu/tpilgrim/j190/Chomsky.summary.html

www.taxjustice.net/2015/08/07/the-power-of-corporate-propaganda-review-of-the-mythology-of-business/
janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/LIberal%20as%20a%20Dirty%20Word.pdf

www.drugpolicy.org/facts/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war-0

www.thecrimson.com/article/1967/10/13/war-on-hippies-pparallel-to-massachusetts/

sobadsogood.com/2015/09/19/laughable-anti-marijuana-propaganda-from-1930s/
Nobody likes to find out that they have been brainwashed into being a sociopath with a slave mentality.

schizophrenic word salat

I have a hard time believing that all the authors of 11 articles are all loons.

Can you not read? It would explain a lot.

Seriously tho read them

>Pretty much every drug user I ever dealt with were extremely impulsive individuals who couldn't just "use it once in a while". They ended up addicted to the point they required the help of our center.

Yeah no shit, you obiously work at an addiction center of some kind so no wonder you don't encounter responsible users sherlock.

>This isn't just people who willingly came up to us and requested help, either. I actually personally know several people who progressed from fucking tobacco to weed and then heavier drugs. One of them even started GROWING weed. They were all impulsive as shit people who literally thought there wouldn't be any negative consequences for their behavior.

Wow, they were actually GROWING WEED? OMG THE HUMANITY

>I don't believe you for a second that most people will simply "use drugs non-pathologically".

Then you are the problem, not the solution.

Even fucking Hobbes had a better view of mankind. Now get off my board

>Libertarianism is a child's philosophy

I bet you can't even name the 4 principles without googling. Sure, there is critisism, but it's foolish to toss away the entirety of liberalism and every subclass.

>I've never done a drug in my life

Oh shit i apologize for the ruse, i misread "libertarianism", i read "liberalism" my bad.

>If you look up statistics for heroin

So I just cracked open my psychopharmacology book and found your 25% percent figure. However it's not really the lifetime risk. It's the risk of becoming addicted after the first dose.

>that's easily googled and common sense

Lol common sense? Maybe among your drug-using friends...

>I know plenty of people who do drugs recreationally and not one developed problems because of them

And I know plenty of people who told me to my face they were responsible human beings yet were unable to control their drug use and it spiraled out of control until it basically destroyed their lives and families.

>propaganda

It's science. If what I'm saying is such horseshit, why don't you post some studies to disprove it?

>But why should doing these thing be illegal?

You see, this is the problem with impulsive people. They cross limits, nothing happens and then they pound on their chests triumphantly claiming there was no risk at all. "I drive at 100 km/h all the time and nothing happens."

Social prohibitions take place BEFORE the risky outcome is likely to happen. That's how it's always been.

>Why should people have their lives ruined for bamboozling their own brain chemistry?

You seem to think that if you use drugs then it's the government who's going to ruin your life.

Well I happen to live in a country where using drugs isn't actually a crime. Only drug production and trafficking is. These guilt-free drug users do a perfectly fine job at fucking up their own lives by themselves. No government needed.

It's not the government that fucks your life. It's the impulsive, high-risk behavior you're engaged in that fucks your life.

youtube.com/watch?v=jz9yZFtRJjk
>we
Actually, you should just kill yourself.

>no wonder you don't encounter responsible users sherlock.

Wow I wonder where are all these people are hiding? They're not at my center, they don't show up to the wild ass parties I've been in... Where the fuck are these people? Do they sit at home taking their drugs and posting on Veeky Forums?

>Wow, they were actually GROWING WEED? OMG THE HUMANITY

To me, it's a highly significant change in behavior. Using drugs in my country isn't a crime but producing them pretty much guarantees hard prison time.

This fucking kid thought it was worth it. That's what makes him impulsive. He simply couldn't calculate the long-term risks of his behavior. Now he smokes tobacco and weed constantly and is unable to stop and I have to help him quit.

>Then you are the problem, not the solution.

Fortunately, I'm backed by science and government policies. You're backed by anecdotes of unicorns and dreams of "responsibility"

Responsible human beings don't fucking do drugs.

>lives in a bubble

Check

>never even tried drugs

Check

>knows what's good for people better than those people themselves

Check

>calls the government and the information it provides a legit authority when it comes to drugs legislation

Check

>thinks weed is bad

Check

>conveniently forgets that 35% of the entire adult (US) population has used drugs but still has to ask "where the responsible users are"

Check

>thinks no one could do thing X because some people can't be responsible with thing X so no one can have it

The results are in:

you are either:

-a middle aged christian woman
-bait
-extremely ignorant
-heavily biased by false representative experiences thus incapable to make rational decisions regarding the matter

Or a combination

>>lives in a bubble

I work in a rehabilitation center you dipshit. How's that for a bubble? Just in case you didn't know, it deals with drug addicts 24/7.

I have more hands-on experience than you.

>>never even tried drugs

I've used several prescription drugs of various classes to treat actual conditions, and they proved to be unsafe enough to make me stop using them. In case you don't know, prescription drugs are made with several pharmacological mechanisms to prevent abuse of the substance.

You actually expect me to enter your fucking lifestyle? The risks outweigh the benefits.

>>knows what's good for people better than those people themselves

Yep. That's basically my fucking job. I fix deeply broken people who got there through a series of stupid choices they made in the height of their "responsibility".

A lot of these people were high and mighty just like you! And yet they screwed themselves over.

>>calls the government and the information it provides a legit authority when it comes to drugs legislation

The information I'm providing comes from psychopharmacology, not some "government".

It's the other way around. The government bases its policies around the currently available research. Research doesn't derive facts from government policies.

So you don't like the government and by extension science, just because the government relies on science. Got it.

>>thinks weed is bad

It is bad you dumb shit. Chronic use of weed is proven to have several deleterious effects on the human brain. I know a weed user when I see one without even a single word passing between us.

Yeah I know what you're gonna say now... "Just don't use it chronically! Haha!" Man what are the odds of that happening?

>>conveniently forgets that 35% of the entire adult (US) population has used drugs but still has to ask "where the responsible users are"

Go ahead and cite the study that generated those numbers. Let's discuss the study. I'm not afraid of being wrong.

>It's the risk of becoming addicted after the first dose
Not exactly. Probability when using at least once. So that is basically every heroin user ever. Ntg btw.

>gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/564760/drug-misuse-1516.pdf

It was UK population study, not US.

>The key findings were:

>Around 1 in 12(8.4%) of adults aged 16 to 59 had taken a drug in the last year.This is around 2.7 million people. This level of drug use is similar to the 2014/15 survey (8.6%), but significantly lower than a decade ago (10.5% in the 2005/06 survey).Over one-third(35.0%) of adults aged 16 to 59 had taken drugs at some point during their lifetime.

The UK must have 2.7 million addicts walking around, and 35% of the population must be irresponsible users :^)

But again, you are heavily biased because you work at an addiction center. You deal with people who can't be responsible, but you don't see the millions of users who are responsible with their use. You don't see the people who use MDMA once in ~3 months to have fun at a festival, you will never treat the lawyers, policy makers, judges, programmers, CEO's, Professors, politicians, scientists etcetera etcetera who smoke cannabis regulary but don't suffer because the are responsible with their use. You will only see the people who were broken even before their use, and addiction just made it worse. You will only see the people walk into your clinic who probably got addicted to something else if not for drugs. Addiction isn't the problem for most addicts, it's the symptom. There are more often than not underlying problems that make them very vulnerable for any addiction. There is a damn good reason that addiction is a form of escapism. But isn't it unfair to ban drugs because of this for the people who can be responsible, and who don't have these underlying problems? Why can't i have some extra fun once every 2/3 months at a festival? Why can't i smoke some weed during my free evenings? Why shouldn't i be allowed to use LSD/shrooms?

Pod Mac, bato!
555-333

kek

Yeah, it applies to all of it, since all of it dumps dopamine into your brain like a tardboy dumps sprinkles into his cereal.
I'm currently dealing with this on marijuana, and also suffering from a complete inability to identify my needs. e.g. I'll be hungry but think I want to smoke, or thirsty and eat. Basically all my messages have been simplified to "your body wants something bro" and I have to put stuff in until I hit the jackpot.

What the fuck are you babbling about you insufferable cunt?

Weed is bad m'kay

Not all drugs work like opiates.

NTG, but as someone is heavily biased from working intake at a mental hospital for a few years, yeah, drugs are bad. Stay away from all dissociatives and hallucinogens, even weed, if you have any mental illness history. Seen a single dose rip people apart for life, simply because their first trip caused a cascade effect that ripped their identity apart. Then they'd wind up at our place, eating their own shit to "maintain their power", or worse.

It doesn't matter if it's coffee or crack, if you can do without a particular drug, you probably should. Yeah, some folks use habitually just fine, but they are all bad to one degree or another.

However...

Drugs, by themselves, are only bad for the addicted individual, their loved ones, and perhaps a few bystanders.

Make them illegal, and suddenly they are bad for everyone, regardless as to whether they use them, or know anyone that does. In addition to the crime all that generates, and the fact that addicts of even fairly benign drugs can't even get entry level jobs (meaning crime is the ONLY way to pay for their addiction), and the global corruption caused by a trillion dollar black market larger than any single sector of the economy... So, you've basically taken something that's bad in a few isolated cases, and turned it into a global pandemic of crime and mayhem that has created the most frightening and powerful mafias the world has ever seen and toppled whole governments.

You don't often hear about people being held at gunpoint by someone trying to fund a cigarette or alcohol habit for a reason. Nor do you find folks addicted to legal drugs recycling manhole covers and ripping the copper wiring out of houses just to fund their habit. If we treated all addicts like we do cigarette users and alcoholics, we'd all be a lot better off, whether we used or not.

So yes, drugs are bad, but making them illegal is magnitudes worse.

>Drugs, by themselves, are only bad for the addicted individual, their loved ones, and perhaps a few bystanders.
>Make them illegal, and suddenly they are bad for everyone, regardless as to whether they use them, or know anyone that does. In addition to the crime all that generates, and the fact that addicts of even fairly benign drugs can't even get entry level jobs (meaning crime is the ONLY way to pay for their addiction), and the global corruption caused by a trillion dollar black market larger than any single sector of the economy... So, you've basically taken something that's bad in a few isolated cases, and turned it into a global pandemic of crime and mayhem that has created the most frightening and powerful mafias the world has ever seen and toppled whole governments.
>You don't often hear about people being held at gunpoint by someone trying to fund a cigarette or alcohol habit for a reason. Nor do you find folks addicted to legal drugs recycling manhole covers and ripping the copper wiring out of houses just to fund their habit. If we treated all addicts like we do cigarette users and alcoholics, we'd all be a lot better off, whether we used or not.
>So yes, drugs are bad, but making them illegal is magnitudes worse.
Fucking Top Post, user


*Saved*

Benzedrine
"... and in 1949, doctors began to move away from prescribing Benzedrine as a bronchodilator and appetite suppressant. In 1959, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made it a prescription drug. After its removal from open sale a black market continued in many large cities, to supply addicts and enthusiasts. For example, the working day at some carnivals (e.g. Labour Day at the Canadian National Exhibition, Toronto, in 1960) was 12 to 16 hours long, enabled by standard dose Benzedrine tablets, still available surreptitiously..."

Meth

"During World War II, methamphetamine was sold in tablet form under the brand name Pervitin, produced by the Berlin-based Temmler pharmaceutical company. It was used extensively by all branches of the combined Wehrmacht armed forces of the Third Reich, and was popular with Luftwaffe pilots in particular, for its performance-enhancing stimulant effects and to induce extended wakefulness.[133][134] Pervitin became colloquially known among the German troops as "Stuka-Tablets" (Stuka-Tabletten) and "Herman-Göring-Pills" (Hermann-Göring-Pillen). Side effects were so serious that the army sharply cut back its usage in 1940.[135] Historian Lukasz Kamienski says "A soldier going to battle on Pervitin usually found himself unable to perform effectively for the next day or two. Suffering from a drug hangover and looking more like a zombie than a great warrior, he had to recover from the side effects." Some soldiers turned very violent, committing war crimes against civilians; others attacked their own officers.[135]

Obetrol, patented by Obetrol Pharmaceuticals in the 1950s and indicated for treatment of obesity, was one of the first brands of pharmaceutical methamphetamine products.[136] Due to the psychological and stimulant effects of methamphetamine, Obetrol became a popular diet pill in America in the 1950s and 1960s."

Why do you think anyone does or even should give a shit about your anecdotes. "in my experience..." is not an argument.

The fact of the matter is that there is no argument that can be made for criminalizing drug use that couldn't also be applied to eating unhealthy food. Obesity kills more people on earth than all drug use combined.

In my experience is an argument. Just not a very convincing one.

The problem is that most people working in addiction centres are monsters of morality who try to shove a holy sounding sort of morality down the throats of everyone stuck in them.

In comparison, I like Audrey Murphy's act of locking himself in a room for a week far better than all the gay shit they do in add.centres.

The USDA has probably killed more people than drugs by proscribing high-carb grain based diets and campaigning against "fat" and "cholesterol" for decades.

Muh drugs.

Burning foliage and breathing burnt leaf smoke for any reason ever. Just become a forest fire fighter if you need plant smoke so much.

Ingesting or injecting chemicals into your body without medical need and supervision. Everybody is Dr. House when they want the needle.

Wanting to alter your brains standard cognitive state and abilities for any reason ever. What is so bad with reality and sober mental stares?

Just a bunch of snowflakes that think blasting thier brains out makes them special. Oh yes, your sadness is really so intense, you clearly need unregulated amounts of whatever chemicals you desire. Bleh. Grow up depressed snowflake. Try facing reality on your own two feet instead of escaping into a bottle of whatever, or a cigarette or a needle.

It's not pathetic, it's just detestable immaturity.

Do drugs improve a persons cognitive ability? Do drugs make a person more physically healthy and mentally aware? Do drugs create better citizens and more active people?

The answer to all these things is No. So why should we tolerate an increasing portion of our society turning into worthless wasted burnt up wrecks of abusers?

>The answer to all these things is No.

The true answer is that you're a fucking idiot.

And one of those retarded "monsters of morality" that I talked about >What is so bad with reality and sober mental stares?

Because everyone has an individualized biochemistry and sometimes, things don't work.

Wow, I explained it without dragging some narcissistic view on why people do drugs. But pardon me, clearly drugs made me a complete fucking idiot.

>But pardon me, clearly drugs made me a complete fucking idiot.

I am glad that you have come to this important moment of self realization. You have taken your first steps into a much more responsible world.

>The answer to all these things is No
You understand you are most likely shitposting on a device created by an individual who was wacked out of his brain on LSD?

You have actually no idea what you are saying pham. Almost all modern philosophers worth their salt were drug addicts, Freud loved his cocaine. There is only one thing worse than a drug addict, and that's those stupid, cowardly individuals who judge others for what substances they put in their body.

What if they do it purely for fun? What is your beef then? You are a proper child, sitting on your high horse, pretending to be an adult while you judge others on their actions. Good show. Your only reply could be to insult me as a drug addict, go on, ill be waiting.

Somebody has clearly never tried amphetamine before.