Mealz wrote:I would have to say, its so post-modern to say that 'whatever floats your boat' or 'each to their own' but i think its obvious that in the long run, drugs really do bad things to ones mental state, wether you respect the drug or not, it does toy with your psyche, can give you bad or good experience, but wouldnt you want something more real to experience? i know this is another can of worms in terms of the philosophy of whats reality. but cmon, you gotta draw a line at some point. By no means am i discrediting anyone who takes any drugs, or saying its bad. Just also speaking from experience though, its not the beez nees in experiencing what life can offer, and in many cases myself and others that i know, its another hinderence in terms of facing some real issues, relational and internal. Ehh i hope that doesnt piss anyone off, just thought i'd give my two cents for no apparent reason :p
Well, it's hardly post-modern, but that's an etymological issue and not one worth discussing. I think your point is that tolerance and privatization of opinion is currently the modernistic status quo, with which I'd agree.
As far as drugs being innately negative, I wholly disagree. Drugs do not affect someone negatively unless the drug is abused in such a way as to forsake the mind for the experiences of pure inebriation. I could cite several examples of people who receive little or no negative impact, often to be outweighed in the long run by a positive impact (I'm not talking about medical use, although it could extend to that. I'm referring to those who have opened their minds with the help of drugs--Aldous Huxley, Carl Sagan, etc.) However, I'm not saying that drugs are purely positive either. They simply are. No connotations. Your experience of reality, whatever reality is deemed to be, may be changed by drugs, but certainly the polarity of the impact is entirely determined by your own internal chemical reactions--emotions. Essentially, the point I'm trying to get across is that regardless of what life can offer, you'll experience it however you choose to experience it, and this is not necessarily good or bad. The drugs really have nothing to do with it. High or sober, experiencing reality is relating to the physical world; neither state is "more real." You could argue that being sober is more natural, I suppose, but at this stage in the development of mankind, the idea of being "natural" is a bit too idealistic.
Drugs can have a profound effect on emotions. After all, it's just chemical soup, anyway. This is why drugs (especially when abused, rather than used on an occasional, recreational basis) tend to lead to "clouding" and other non-physical difficulties. Would I encourage everyone to do drugs? Of course not. But encouraging everyone not to do drugs, or even suggesting that pure sobriety is ethically and psychologically superior to non-habitual inebriation is another side of the same coin. The varieties of experience ought not to be discouraged.
By the way, I'm in no way pissed, in case I came off that way. I just felt obligated to give my two cents as well. I used to do a lot of drugs, but have been clean for quite some time now. Life is life, and it's all you've got; how you lead it is up to you.
But in my own humble opinion, I believe he is right on this point. 
