Salvia Divinorum!

[Screenor]

Additionally, if I can do drugs with only very minor harm done to my body, do them responisbly, and experience many things as a result, why does it become anyone's position to lead me against such actions?

I don't think he was arguing that you shouldn't do it, just that if you do do it, you're stupid for doing it.

I think, at least -- that's sort of how I look at drugs. I don't think they should be illegal, I just think that people who use them are stupid. :)

I think people who choose to live in Canada are stupid, that's how I look at Canadians.

am i doin it rite? lulz

[iago]

I think people who choose to live in Canada are stupid, that's how I look at Canadians.

am i doin it rite? lulz

Your point...?

[Screenor]

I think people who choose to live in Canada are stupid, that's how I look at Canadians.

am i doin it rite? lulz

Your point...?

Same thing aplies. It's all opinionated, you're not actually "stupid" for using. Unless it's something hard like cocaine or heroin. Then you're an absolute idiot. However, that's my opinion still.

[Rule]

I'm not sure where I stand on drug intervention.  In principle, I believe someone should have the right to do whatever he pleases, so long as it doesn't interfere with other people.  Of course, purchasing drugs always does interfere with other people, at least in some indirect way.  Where does the money go, for instance?  So I suppose I would be in favour of permitting the use of any drug if we could be rather sure this interference would be positive, on the whole.  I don't think that's the case, but then again, I haven't given this very much thought and it's besides the point in this thread. 

Now, I don't think someone is necessarily stupid for doing a drug.  It depends on the drug and the circumstances; contrary to Screenor, I don't think someone who does cocaine or heroin is necessarily stupid.  Very few things are black and white like that.  I do, however, think the general attitude towards drugs on this forum, and the way in which they are being used, is stupid.  And if that attitude becomes a defining personality trait, then I suppose it also makes you stupid, in some sense.

[iago]

I think people who choose to live in Canada are stupid, that's how I look at Canadians.

am i doin it rite? lulz

Your point...?

Same thing aplies. It's all opinionated, you're not actually "stupid" for using. Unless it's something hard like cocaine or heroin. Then you're an absolute idiot. However, that's my opinion still.

What I mean is, you can think whatever you want, I don't care. It makes no difference to my opinion.

[Screenor]

I think people who choose to live in Canada are stupid, that's how I look at Canadians.

am i doin it rite? lulz

Your point...?

Same thing aplies. It's all opinionated, you're not actually "stupid" for using. Unless it's something hard like cocaine or heroin. Then you're an absolute idiot. However, that's my opinion still.

What I mean is, you can think whatever you want, I don't care. It makes no difference to my opinion.

I know, I'm just clarifying that it's only an opinion. :)

[iago]

I know, I'm just clarifying that it's only an opinion. :)

It's a reasoned, justified opinion.

In your case, it's just nonsense that you probably don't even believe.

[leet_muffin]

If, through putting chemicals into my body which do very little damage, I experience things which I find enjoyable, and am able to sustain such actions through responsibility while consuming the drug and in everyday life, how is that at all stupid? How is that different from spending money on any other form of entertainment.

[iago]

If, through putting chemicals into my body which do very little damage, I experience things which I find enjoyable, and am able to sustain such actions through responsibility while consuming the drug and in everyday life, how is that at all stupid? How is that different from spending money on any other form of entertainment.

I think the doing "very little damage" part is where it becomes qeustionable. In my opinion, anything that's designed screw around with how my brain is working scares me. Not to mention that the long term affects of most modern drugs are unknown (of course, same goes for a lot of artificial flavours, colours, and preservatives in food, but I also do my best to avoid those..).

[Warrior]

Additionally, if I can do drugs with only very minor harm done to my body, do them responisbly, and experience many things as a result, why does it become anyone's position to lead me against such actions?

I don't think he was arguing that you shouldn't do it, just that if you do do it, you're stupid for doing it.

Calling someone "Retarded" for using something inherently means that the justification for that claim is trying to steer people away from the drug. Obviously the user will ask why he's considered retarded, and the conditional is then "If you use this you're retarded, but if you don't use it you're not" which is indeed persuading someone to not use it.

There's also a very fine difference between persuading someone not to use something, and agreeing with the legality purely for the freedom of choice.

This was a simple bait by Rule because he probably wanted to get a rant off of his chest, and what easier way to seem natural when doing so than by preying on those who would fly to the defense of drugs at the drop of a dime (Screenor, Camel, etc)?

[leet_muffin]

If, through putting chemicals into my body which do very little damage, I experience things which I find enjoyable, and am able to sustain such actions through responsibility while consuming the drug and in everyday life, how is that at all stupid? How is that different from spending money on any other form of entertainment.

I think the doing "very little damage" part is where it becomes qeustionable. In my opinion, anything that's designed screw around with how my brain is working scares me. Not to mention that the long term affects of most modern drugs are unknown (of course, same goes for a lot of artificial flavours, colours, and preservatives in food, but I also do my best to avoid those..).

I would guess that about the same amount of damage is done in one hit of salvia as sitting through a 2 hour movie eating popcorn.

[Rule]

Additionally, if I can do drugs with only very minor harm done to my body, do them responisbly, and experience many things as a result, why does it become anyone's position to lead me against such actions?

I don't think he was arguing that you shouldn't do it, just that if you do do it, you're stupid for doing it.

Calling someone "Retarded" for using something inherently means that the justification for that claim is trying to steer people away from the drug. Obviously the user will ask why he's considered retarded, and the conditional is then "If you use this you're retarded, but if you don't use it you're not" which is indeed persuading someone to not use it.

There's also a very fine difference between persuading someone not to use something, and agreeing with the legality purely for the freedom of choice.

Did you read this post? http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,12336.msg155722.html#msg155722

[iago]

Calling someone "Retarded" for using something inherently means that the justification for that claim is trying to steer people away from the drug. Obviously the user will ask why he's considered retarded, and the conditional is then "If you use this you're retarded, but if you don't use it you're not" which is indeed persuading someone to not use it.

So what you're implying is that freedom of choice and freedom of speech are mutually exclusive?

I would guess that about the same amount of damage is done in one hit of salvia as sitting through a 2 hour movie eating popcorn.

How, exactly, did you come up with that comparison?

[Warrior]

Did you read this post? http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,12336.msg155722.html#msg155722

Yes, which was posted after the fact.

[Warrior]

Calling someone "Retarded" for using something inherently means that the justification for that claim is trying to steer people away from the drug. Obviously the user will ask why he's considered retarded, and the conditional is then "If you use this you're retarded, but if you don't use it you're not" which is indeed persuading someone to not use it.

So what you're implying is that freedom of choice and freedom of speech are mutually exclusive?

That's not what I said at all. He may very well believe in freedom of choice, but that's not the point I addressed. I simply showed the corner he painted people in, regardless of the backtracking he now did to try to soften things up.