On Drug Use

[aperson]

Originally Posted by wickedawesomeful

Anything that's legal under some circumstances is always easier to get than things that are illegal. Legalizing drugs would make it ten times easier for a juvenile to get them.

If I make a phone call I can have weed or acid on my doorstep in less than an hour. If I want alcohol I have to find someone over 21 to do an alcohol run for me. I have news for you: It's easier to get the illegal drugs than the legal ones in many cases when you're under the legal age.

[smartdude1212]

Originally Posted by wickedawesomeful

Anything that's legal under some circumstances is always easier to get than things that are illegal. Legalizing drugs would make it ten times easier for a juvenile to get them.

Legalizing drugs would also allow the government to impose high taxes on them, which will prevent people from buying and they'll continue to act as if it's still illegal by making their own and selling it privately for slightly cheaper than what the government would be having them pay.

[pntballa18]

Originally Posted by smartdude1212

Legalizing drugs would also allow the government to impose high taxes on them, which will prevent people from buying

Druggies have an addiction. If they run out of cash, they are gonna get their fix. Imposing a high tax on drugs isn't going to prevent people from buying them, since some people spend all the money they have on drugs anyways.

[smartdude1212]

Originally Posted by pntballa18

Druggies have an addiction. If they run out of cash, they are gonna get their fix. Imposing a high tax on drugs isn't going to prevent people from buying them, since some people spend all the money they have on drugs anyways.

True, but nevertheless there will still be the unlicensed makers and sellers, making a profit so they can buy other drugs for themselves.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

What qualifies as "drug abuse"? Also, how many of those people were arrested for, say, LSD in their own home, and how many people were arrested for going off the deep end with cocaine or heroin or whatever, thereby endangering themselves and possibly others around them?

Here:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/..._for_marij.pdf
Scroll down to page 17.

At first glance, it looks pretty much like "oh look that's not much." The stats aren't manipulated (well afaik, it's doubtful anyway >__>) but the way it's presented is. Bust out the calculator and just under 60% of all marijuana related prisoners are in there for marijuana alone. Also, the drug possession offenses accounts for imprisonment and doesn't include arrests, which is why it doesn't match up with the "12.5 percent of all arrests" thing from the FBI's site.

Remember, marijuana also has a black market behind it. It attracts criminal behavior, and from the statistics 60% of those imprisoned because of it didn't do anything else.

As stated above the doesn't say anything about arrests. Also take note that someone imprisoned solely for marijuana are probably going to be in there less than people who are in there for that same offense and more.

[Cavernio]

from Aperson: "On the other hand, mushrooms and acid have the possibility to destroy a person's perception of themself and emerge a broken shell of a person."

Are you saying that a person who does these drugs and ends up this way is to blame for their state of being? Is it obvious for a first-time user to know how they'll react to these drugs, and should know when to or when not to use them? I've heard that for some people who've done LSD, even as little as once, they may start tripping out randomly even years later; is that true? From what I've learned about LSD from you, it certainly makes sense that this would indeed be possible given that, apparently, the high you get happens after the drug's gone.

That you say some people get effected negatively itself is enough to turn me off from even trying either drug. The only 'drugs' I've done are weed, alcohol and caffeine, but I've definitely heard both good and bad things about drugs, and I resent that it's assumed that because I don't feel inclined to do drugs, I'm stupid. Are you telling me I shouldn't believe what you've told me about possible aversive reactions to shrooms and LSD?

Let's say I do read up about drugs and want to try ones which probably won't cause me problems, how am I supposed to know that what I think I'm getting is what is actually what I'm getting? I don't want to get laced drugs. Am I supposed to run tests on them beforehand; set up a little lab in my house, learn a bunch of chemistry? Now, if the drugs were legal, I wouldn't be concerned about that issue, nor would I be concerned that I might fall into a month long depression after taking them because every 1/500 people have that averse reaction to them. If they were legal, and made for pleasure, (like alcohol) I'd probably try them, and what do you know, I have done legal drugs!

I agree with you that people should be more educated about the effects of drugs, however, how do you educate about all of them? New drugs are constantly entering the market, and unless it's being released by a pharmaceutical company, it's not been methodically tested to see if it harms people. Geez, I'm wary of pharmaceutical drugs enough as it is, because I've experienced side-effects of prescription drugs which didn't officially exist. I read in scientific american or new scientist (forget which one) this past year, an article which was about new drugs, not yet illegal or legal, that had entered the British market. I'd heard of none of them, and the number of them was surprising, and all of them mentioned cases of averse as well as beneficial effects. Now I know you're not saying to go out there and try random drugs, not at all, but I get an impression that you're saying people are stupid if they err on caution and decide not to try any street drugs. I think a good way to put it is that researching drugs and doing safe ones is your hobby.

You've also mentioned you don't think that drugs should be blamed for a person's actions. I'm not sure exactly what you've said to support this from what you've written; it seems to be more of a personal idea of culpability and free will than anything relating to drugs themselves.

I also have an issue with all the people who've easily made a distinction between psychological and physical addiction. They're not really separable to me, and I'd like to know what constitutes physical versus psychological addiction to you.

[Tyren]

www.erowid.org

Enjoy.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

from Aperson: "On the other hand, mushrooms and acid have the possibility to destroy a person's perception of themself and emerge a broken shell of a person."

Are you saying that a person who does these drugs and ends up this way is to blame for their state of being? Is it obvious for a first-time user to know how they'll react to these drugs, and should know when to or when not to use them? I've heard that for some people who've done LSD, even as little as once, they may start tripping out randomly even years later; is that true? From what I've learned about LSD from you, it certainly makes sense that this would indeed be possible given that, apparently, the high you get happens after the drug's gone.

Yes, it is the person's fault for ending up that way. Also, the stories you hear of people 'randomly tripping out' are largely exaggerated, save in cases of people that have done the drug constantly (i.e. 3 or more times a week for extended periods). This can lead to Hallucinogenic Persistent Perceptive Disorder. Because tryptamines like acid and mushrooms amplify neural processes, they also increase the rate at which neurons rewire while you are on the drug. Due to this this, your brain is in a kind of hyper-learning mode while on them. This can cause you to develop an explicitly wired reaction to things that might've been vividly imprinted onto you during a trip. For example, if I spent a large part of a trip looking at a lamp, then when I am not tripping the lamp might incite those same hallucinogenic cues back in my brain. It doesn't mean I'm tripping again, but because I'm in a similar state of mind I can access the same thought patterns and, yes, things can get a little bit trippy (though it is easy to control and doesn't distract me; even with my moderate psychedelic use).

However, drugs like mushrooms and acid depend on the set and setting of a user. Because of my psyche that I've crafted over my lifetime, I feel that I would be comfortable with about anything that these drugs could present to me. I have definitely experienced some ego shattering trips that I could see negatively affecting someone who is not adequately mentally prepared. But the neat thing with these drugs is that when you truly know that you're prepared for them, you can handle the gamut of what they can dish out. I do not know of anyone who has proper respect for the drug and mental setting for acid and mushrooms that have had trips which have had lasting negative effects on them. I have, however, seen people who like to do drugs to get fucked up become a bit shattered by their experience. That's their fault for not preparing, not the drug's fault, and I don't see why their ignorance should strip the right to the experience away from prepared users such as myself.

That you say some people get effected negatively itself is enough to turn me off from even trying either drug. The only 'drugs' I've done are weed, alcohol and caffeine, but I've definitely heard both good and bad things about drugs, and I resent that it's assumed that because I don't feel inclined to do drugs, I'm stupid. Are you telling me I shouldn't believe what you've told me about possible aversive reactions to shrooms and LSD?

I don't know what kind of assumptions you are making from my post, but I have no problem with people who choose not to do drugs. I do have problems with people who choose to ignorantly demonize drugs, much like I have problems with users who abuse drugs without understanding their nature. You are assuming that I assume non drug users are stupid, this is not an assumption I make. Some of the people I respect most, such as the Dalai Lama, art strictly against doing drugs.

I think it is important that you properly educate yourself so you understand what the nature of the adverse reactions to mushrooms and LSD are. The content of a trip is largely controlled by the mindstate of the user and the environment the user is in. A user with a proper mindstate and environment will not have a negative trip. They might have a difficult trip (I've had several), but certainly not a negative one.

Let's say I do read up about drugs and want to try ones which probably won't cause me problems, how am I supposed to know that what I think I'm getting is what is actually what I'm getting? I don't want to get laced drugs. Am I supposed to run tests on them beforehand; set up a little lab in my house, learn a bunch of chemistry? Now, if the drugs were legal, I wouldn't be concerned about that issue, nor would I be concerned that I might fall into a month long depression after taking them because every 1/500 people have that averse reaction to them. If they were legal, and made for pleasure, (like alcohol) I'd probably try them, and what do you know, I have done legal drugs!

Uhh, exactly. I agree with you 100%. This is one of the pivotal arguments I use to argue for drug legalization. By legalizing drugs we'd get rid of the risk of impure or laced drugs. However, most illegal drugs have easy ways to check. For example, your weed isn't laced. It's simple supply and demand; a dealer isn't going to stuff a $20 bag of weed with $100 drugs. Even if they are, any adulterant on something like weed is going to be very visible or odorous. Any kind of invisible drug like acid would simply melt off when combusted and you wouldn't get anything from it. For mushrooms, I'd say it's pretty plainly obvious: Is it a mushroom with a gold cap that bruises blue? Yep, probably a good mushroom. Granted, this isn't a good rule of thumb if you're picking them yourself, but since almost all mushrooms you take are going to be grown in sterilized cultures, I'd say your pretty incredibly sure of what you're getting. LSD? The only other drugs active in ranges small enough to work on blotter paper are the DO* family (DOI, DOB, DOM), and these don't glow under blacklight. That's why I always check my sheets of acid to make sure they glow. Aside from these, though, you're right, there are many drugs which pose a danger of being laced or impure (such as coke or ecstasy). That's one of the reasons I choose not to do those, and I believe it is a perfectly respectable reason to choose not to do a drug.

I agree with you that people should be more educated about the effects of drugs, however, how do you educate about all of them? New drugs are constantly entering the market, and unless it's being released by a pharmaceutical company, it's not been methodically tested to see if it harms people. Geez, I'm wary of pharmaceutical drugs enough as it is, because I've experienced side-effects of prescription drugs which didn't officially exist. I read in scientific american or new scientist (forget which one) this past year, an article which was about new drugs, not yet illegal or legal, that had entered the British market. I'd heard of none of them, and the number of them was surprising, and all of them mentioned cases of averse as well as beneficial effects. Now I know you're not saying to go out there and try random drugs, not at all, but I get an impression that you're saying people are stupid if they err on caution and decide not to try any street drugs. I think a good way to put it is that researching drugs and doing safe ones is your hobby.

A lot of the new drugs slipping in the market are known as Research Chemicals (commonly abbreviated RCs). These are phenethylamines and tryptamines like DO*, 2c-*, amt, 5-meo-amt, 5-meo-dipt, etc.... You won't be running into these unless you are already into the drug scene, and if you're that far into the scene then you are aware of resources like http://www.erowid.org which can give anyone all the research they need. I think that proper drug education over all of the basic common drugs in high school would be perfectly sufficient. Not that laughably horrible DARE program that we have now.

You've also mentioned you don't think that drugs should be blamed for a person's actions. I'm not sure exactly what you've said to support this from what you've written; it seems to be more of a personal idea of culpability and free will than anything relating to drugs themselves.

The outcome of any drug is based upon the mind of the user. As I stated above, shrooms are largely based on the mind-set that the user is in. A smart, informed drug user is going to properly respect the substances they use and stay out of harms way. It is only the ignorant users, you will find, that are infringing on others when they do their drugs.

I also have an issue with all the people who've easily made a distinction between psychological and physical addiction. They're not really separable to me, and I'd like to know what constitutes physical versus psychological addiction to you.

Physical addiction means that there is a physical mechanism inside of your body which causes a dependence on the drug. Alcohol and benzodiazepines are good examples of drugs that are physically addictive. Anyone who has used these drugs sufficiently heavily and then immediately stops will die from their withdrawal. This is because they are active at GABA sites on the body, and after using these drugs heavily, the brain stops producing its own GABA agonizers because the alcohol or benzos are maintaining equilibrium on their own. Once the supply has been cut off, the brain does not make up for it and the individual can die. This is why there is a careful method of slowly weaning heavy users off from either of these drugs (in the case of benzodiazepines, this process can take months or more).

Psychological addiction is only addiction which stems from some kind of reward-system mechanism the user has created. This means that the individual only has cravings for it, and doesn't exhibit actual physical symptoms like tremors or convulsions. Cocaine would be a great example of a drug that is fantastically psychologically addictive because it plays with your dopamine receptors so heavily.

[talisman]

Although, interestingly enough, mice without dopamine receptors will still self-administer cocaine.

To further expound upon the difference between physical and psychological addiction, psychological works on basically the ventral tegmental area - nucleus accumbens pathway (for most addictive drugs, sex, and food) while physical actually messes up stuff in the brain stem (medulla) that specifically control breathing and heartbeat and fairly critical stuff like that.

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by aperson

That's your choice; I respect that, and I think all people should.

If someone offers you a drink or a drug, it doesn't mean that they're pressuring you into being a drug user. I offer people my weed or drugs from my stash because I like to share and have company. I'm doing it out of politeness, and if you decline or show that you don't do drugs then I won't bother you with it again. Maybe you should view other peoples' offers as more along this nature rather than as a pressure to do drugs.

Yeah, I know not everyone is like that, of course not. I'm just saying I've run into a lot of people who are.

It's true that some people will pressure you into doing drugs. Those people are pricks; you should probably avoid them. But you're generalizing about all drug users, and by doing this you've created quite a similar high-and-mighty attitude for yourself that is quite similar to the attitude you categorize onto drug users as well.

I know what it's doing, and I know that not everyone acts that way, but it's just that a literal 90% of more who have spoken to me about it at all ended up having "that personality", you know? I mean, I know I probably won't be that way, but that doesn't change my opinion of having no desire to do them.

It seems that all of your problems stem from the drug users you know, not the drugs. Don't bash the drugs for the people; using that logic got us in much the same scheduling predicament we're in today

I know, I'm sorry for generalizing about them so much, but it's just that I keep finding these same people saying the exact same kinds of things. It's kind of like how stereotypes are made. Although they are, well, not correct for a large amount of people, it starts to get stuck in our heads and we can't really change our minds after that.

But even so, I'm not going to start.

Anyway, I think one of the major reasons that this is illegal is simply because some drugs are so addictive. Do we really want people to depend on something THAT much? I mean, I know you could say the same for alcohol, but it WAS illegal at some points in time, and even now, it still ruins tons of people. It should probably be illegal as well, and I'm saying that even though I kind of support it. It's one of those "I know this is wrong, but it won't change my decision" things.

[Cavernio]

Thanks Tal and aperson, I didn't know the difference, but there's definitely one there. I think that the term physical dependence would be better than physical addiction, but whatever's standard.

I don't know much about where cocaine starts to work specifically, however, I did write a mediocre paper around a year ago which discusses the role of the prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens in regulating drug-seeking behaviour. The release of dopamine in the ventral tegmental area or the basolateral amygdala isn't the end of the line, so to speak, in terms of reward/behaviour seeking system. The dopamine projections involved in drug-seeking behaviour in rats activate the dorsal prefrontal cortex, which then activate the nucleus accumbens, and then the ventral pallidum. The studies I found indicated the glutamatergic activation in the PFC and NA are what's really at the heart of some drug-seeking behaviour.

Well, it's alright to be informed about being in the correct state of mind in order to use drugs, but I think that no matter how much I read about how to have a good trip, I still think I'm going to be ignorant about what a drug's really like until I experience it myself. If what you say is largely true, that my trip would depend on my state of mind that I can control, I think I'd better stay away from hallucinogens, because my state of mind is fickle and often not very healthy, and I have a hard time staying in control enough as it is.

I get more about you're saying about the person being the cause of drug problems, but for highly addictive drugs, once a person's addicted, its just downhill from there, and it's pretty harsh to put all the blame on the person. People demonize all drugs because it's easier than saying some are good for reasons a and b, but bad for reason c, and there's the hope that if all of them are put down, then it will stop those people who won't ever bother informing themselves properly from ever trying any.

[Verruckter]

I read some of the posts here (including the OP, but I must say I didn't read them all), and yet I still have no desire to take any kind of drugs at all. I must say that to me the idea of ingesting something that would change what's normal to me, and I can't stress this enough, isn't perticularely attracting. You talk about natural use of drugs. Those are the ones you don't consciously know you're "using". You don't realize you're being under their influence and you also have no choice but to use them. The difference comes where you take drugs voluntarely. You force your body to change it's behavior. You abuse of your own system by modifying and amplifying it's components to an extent where you push it to it's limits. That's the part that's not normal.

You speak about animals that lick their wounds to ease the pain. In this case, the molecule was intented to ease the pain (in the evolutive process that lead to that animal and the way it lived), but it was not intended to make you hallucinate. If you use it for the latter, you are, in my opinion, abusing of it's original purpose and you can in no way speak about something natural or normal. That's where most people, especially drug users/addicts don't draw the line. They pretend drug uses are normal because your body naturally produces some of them. But it's not the case because those natural drugs serve a specific purpose which is not to create pleasure.

Again, sorry for not having read everything and also sorry if I'm not making much sense.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Verruckter

I read some of the posts here (including the OP, but I must say I didn't read them all), and yet I still have no desire to take any kind of drugs at all.

That's fine and dandy, but do you still carry a disdain and disrespect for those who use drugs simply because they use them? If so, then we still have some stuff to work through.

I must say that to me the idea of ingesting something that would change what's normal to me, and I can't stress this enough, isn't perticularely attracting. You talk about natural use of drugs. Those are the ones you don't consciously know you're "using". You don't realize you're being under their influence and you also have no choice but to use them. The difference comes where you take drugs voluntarely. You force your body to change it's behavior. You abuse of your own system by modifying and amplifying it's components to an extent where you push it to it's limits. That's the part that's not normal.

Okay, what about medication then? Surely that wouldn't be considered natural by what you described above. Even the acetaminophen in Tylenol damages our liver as its metabolized. In fact, as far as physical effects go, mushrooms and marijuana are safer than tylenol. If painkilling is a valid reason to use a drug, I don't see why fun or learning can't be valid reasons as well.


Edit: Also

I know, I'm sorry for generalizing about them so much, but it's just that I keep finding these same people saying the exact same kinds of things. It's kind of like how stereotypes are made. Although they are, well, not correct for a large amount of people, it starts to get stuck in our heads and we can't really change our minds after that.

I agree with you a lot here, actually. I hate a lot of drug users because they're pompous idiots / tools / unable to handle them, but I like drugs.

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by aperson

That's fine and dandy, but do you still carry a disdain and disrespect for those who use drugs simply because they use them? If so, then we still have some stuff to work through.

No, I don't, but only to a certain extent. I don't mind people using drugs as long as they don't do it in my face, i.e. blowing the smoke on me or just being retards/violent towards me (even though that's not very likely to happen).

EDIT: All of my friends are cool with the fact that I don't drink/take drugs. My motto is pretty much "Live and let live", I don't care what you do as long as you don't bother me and you tolerate/respect me.

Okay, what about medication then? Surely that wouldn't be considered natural by what you described above. Even the acetaminophen in Tylenol damages our liver as its metabolized. In fact, as far as physical effects go, mushrooms and marijuana are safer than tylenol. If painkilling is a valid reason to use a drug, I don't see why fun or learning can't be valid reasons as well.

I don't see much counter argument to that other than the fact that Tylenol or most pain-killers aren't intended to make you do something stupid like fight against a tree (and lose) or stare at a wall for five hours. I don't see much learning in that other than the "I've been there and done it" argument, which doesn't add up to much because it won't really help you do something useful (if it does, tell me, I'd love to know).

[lord_carbo]

Let's not look at annoying drug users as purely annoying drug users. Instead, let's look at them as annoying people.

Yes I know somebody just like that. He talks and brags about weed and **** and flaunts it and whatnot when he already knows my circle of friends doesn't care about his drugs or want to get involved with him. But he's an annoying person. Even before he got into weed, he was the most annoying person I've ever met in awhile. After drugs, he was just an annoying kid with drugs.

I wouldn't care if someone asked me if I wanted a joint. I'd refuse, and that'd be the end of it. A problem with health classes though is that they try to make it seem like if someone offers you a joint/cigarette/alcohol, they'll only accept you if you take what they're offering you so you need to refuse as coldly and inhumanely as possible. Now the flaw in this logic is so earth-shatteringly obvious and it's very easy to compare this to any other yes/no question you could possibly ask about someone's tastes, yet still some people tend to get brainwashed into it. This is something that particularly annoys me about health class pertaining to drugs and communication skills.

[Relambrien]

aperson, you seem to think that the general consensus among the populace is that "Drugs are bad."

I have not met a single person who believes this.

Everyone I have ever talked to about the subject, even only a little, realizes that all the things you mentioned in the OP are drugs. Drugs as a group are not inherently bad; I don't know anyone who thinks they are. Caffeine, Tylenol, they're all acceptable because they provide a physical benefit (energy and painkilling respectively) at a low physical cost (as you've outlined).

The reason things like marijuana are illegal is because they provide little to no physical benefit. You've said yourself, essentially, that the mental effects (hallucinations, etc.) are the positives from marijuana. In return, however, are physical effects that the government has deemed not worth the mental return.

In short: drugs that have beneficial physical effects like Tylenol, at a relatively low physical cost, are acceptable. Drugs that serve only to induce a high or trip at some physical cost are not, except in certain situations (laughing gas is comparable, I guess). This is because the physical well-being of a person is more important than the mental ecstasy. As an example, would you rather be a quadriplegic with a constant high or a fully-functional person with depression? I don't know about you, but I'll take being the latter.

Also, it's late so I may recant some of my statements here if I wake up tomorrow, look at this, and go "...What the heck was I thinking when I said this?" So forgive any stupidity on my part.

[ToshX]

One of the main reasons I also don't like them is because people may be able to research them, but who knows what kind of new information we'll come out with sometime :/ And there's already so much medical stuff we already don't know. If a problem can't even be identified, then it's obviously going to be even harder to find out it came from drug use. With drugs, you're putting so much stuff in your body that the possibilities of something happening are huge. That'd be assuming we already knew all of the possible things drugs can do to you in terms of things we've already identified as problems though :/

I mean yeah, it's the same way with some food as well, but I don't feel the need to make things more dangerous than they are. I mean, I know I've already said that, but the point of a thread is to argue why someone would or would not want to start.

Quick EDIT:

Okay, what about medication then? Surely that wouldn't be considered natural by what you described above. Even the acetaminophen in Tylenol damages our liver as its metabolized. In fact, as far as physical effects go, mushrooms and marijuana are safer than tylenol. If painkilling is a valid reason to use a drug, I don't see why fun or learning can't be valid reasons as well.

I don't like to really use medicine at all. I take no medication, and I'd refuse it if it were ever offered to me. I mean, I don't even like using painkillers unless I really need to, I'd rather just lie down. You know, it's not too rare that someone actually gets rid of their sickness/whatever faster WITHOUT painkillers before they get rid of it with painkillers. All the painkillers really do is make you feel okay for a couple of hours until they go away. But that also makes the sickness go away a bit slower in a lot of cases.

I mean, I can't state this as a fact, this is just how I think it works and how it has worked for me.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

This is because the physical well-being of a person is more important than the mental ecstasy. As an example, would you rather be a quadriplegic with a constant high or a fully-functional person with depression? I don't know about you, but I'll take being the latter.

Question: why should anybody care? And who should be the judge of what people should do with their own bodies so long as they aren't harming others?

Originally Posted by ToshX

One of the main reasons I also don't like them is because people may be able to research them, but who knows what kind of new information we'll come out with sometime :/ And there's already so much medical stuff we already don't know. If a problem can't even be identified, then it's obviously going to be even harder to find out it came from drug use. With drugs, you're putting so much stuff in your body that the possibilities of something happening are huge. That'd be assuming we already knew all of the possible things drugs can do to you in terms of things we've already identified as problems though :/

Although it is true that many many many drugs aren't very well documented (doesn't help that they're illegal, heh), still many are and there's pretty much no chance something unobserved would ever happen to a person when doing said drug. But yes, I do understand what you're saying with the "putting some random chemical into your body that'll do weird things" thing.

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Question: why should anybody care? And who should be the judge of what people should do with their own bodies so long as they aren't harming others?

Because the government knows what's good for you

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Question: why should anybody care? And who should be the judge of what people should do with their own bodies so long as they aren't harming others?

The thing is, a lot of people do harm others just because they want drug money.

Haven't you ever heard of a drug abuser robbing a convenience store? Probably a lot more often than an alcoholic doing the same. Drugs can just be really, really expensive :/

That or I only know of cheap alcohol, rofl.

Anyway, when I was in school, someone had some sort of drug hidden in his pen(like he took the ink thing and all of that out of it) and he gave it to me and I just kinda held it and he was all like "ogm u haev to hold it upward" and I was like "what?". So I asked him how much the oddly shaped little solid pieces of things costed him and he said "they're $6 apiece, I bought 40".

It was then that I realized that this really can become quite the expensive habit, and that just added on to reasons I'd never do drugs.