You want point by point? We'll do point by point, at least for now.
This is just silly. Drugs are no different from anything else that people enjoy doing at the expense of more productive behaviour. From dancing to watching TV to shopping to masturbating. The idea that drugs are seperate because the activity involves ingesting a substance doesn't follow. And if you're saying the drugs have a psychological effect, you need evidence, evidence that doesn't exist in most cases. Yes, drug addiction can be a very serious problem, but any other addiciton is equally harmful. Further, the war on drugs has never been shown to decrease actual addiction rates.
You're right to a point. I haven't heard much about people dropping out of productive society to dance in their rooms late at night, but if people were inclined to do that then we might have a problem on our hands. As for masturbation and that sort of thing--it's far too hard to regulate that sort of activity, even when it is damaging to society. Drugs are an instance where we can and should take preventative action.
Now you're ascribing psychological states to national interest. That seems a little odd to me. And regardless, as I've already pointed out, drugs are no different than other things that give you a "false" sense of fulfillment. Saying that they are seperate and evil in themselves only exacerbates the problem, and does not ameliorate it in any way.
You must think I'm slow. Drugs are very different from those other activities you mentioned. In fact, drugs are different from most if not all other activities. As I just pointed out, nobody's overall productivity is being zeroed out by hobbies. Drugs have that capacity even now, and they're difficult to obtain. If the dam ever breaks, expect the town to flood.
If you think psychological states aren't in the "national interest" then you are even more naive than I thought.
Simply wrong. 1) Psychedelic mushrooms, peyote, and many, many other psychoactive substances have been used by many cultures, in America, Europe, Australia, everywhere, for thousands of years. True, LSD is new, and so is Ecstasy, but even Egyptian nobles had access to Coca (if the chemical evidence from mummies is to be believed). 2) Alcohol is many times more potent and deadly than marijuana, LSD, and many other psychoactives. It can casue death, and long term use has been linked to liver damager, kidney damage, heart damage, and all sorts of other ailments. Alcoholism is probably the single most harmful drug-related ailment in the history of mankind. And as for the drugs that are indeed more dangerous, there's no evidence that prohibition is doing any good in reducing harm.
It's difficult to know where to begin when presented with something so juicy yet so convoluted as this. Keep in mind that what follows is in no particular order.
Only the Egyptian nobles were likely to have had access to coca. Nobles aren't really important working members of a society--they are a dynastic elite most of whom have not worked for their positions. That is: they're already dead weight. Who cares if they further incapacitate themselves with drugs?
Moreover, Spanish conquistadors used wide distribution of Coca leaves to passify and exploit Incan natives while they conquered South America. So you're right in one sense: drugs can be used to increase productivity. However, it comes at the price of having to provide an alternative incentive [to happiness) for the workers. In this case, slavery, flogging and murder fit the bill. I'd rather not give our government those responsibilities over us, though.
Regarding psychoactive mushrooms in Central and South America: I hardly think the vulgar pastimes of savages and second rate tribes (who, in case you couldn't tell, did not rise to world prominence, ever) should be used as a model for an ideal American society. Read: I don't give a hoot if they did it. It doesn't seem to have done them any good.
Alcohol is less potent in its delivery of undeserved euphoria. That's all I meant about potency. I know that alcohol is very bad for you. It's not a society killer, though.
If you had any idea of the number of people in this country who are go-getters, money makers, creative thinkers, teachers, and innovators, and who also use drugs, you might eat your words. As it stands, its impolite to make assumptions of people about whom you have only peripheral knowledge.
Who told you that one? Sure some of our leaders experimented with drugs in their youths, but I would not have a current drug user in any political office, and I would not want a drug user to be CEO of my company. Are you saying you would? Either way, there are lots of people in this country. I would gladly see those drug users you laud removed from their powerful positions and replaced by more deserving and, frankly, more stable non-drug-users.
You're just speculating, though. You don't actually know that there are a great many powerful, worthwhile drug users. Please keep your fantasies out of your arguments in the future.
[ Parent ]