Yeah, this is not a new subject. Other people have done a plethora on this and your interest may have been piqued which is great, but you cannot write a thesis without first reading primary and secondary sources. Perhaps start with McTaggart. Or maybe just this.

The questions of "what is time?" now become what is this force; what causes the future to become the past; how does now transform the future to the past; and what does this transformation consist of. — Metaphysician Undercover

The question is about time and as it is a dimension time can exist without any forces but not the other way around.

Hi Banno.

I like McTaggart' mind-dependent view that temporality is contradictory, just an appearance or an illusion and that there is no such thing as time. Is the past the only 'reality' and if so, since it is the past, how can it be real as it is, well, past. And if we cannot live in the future because it is not here yet, all we have is the present, which does not contain any properties because it is the past. Whether the arrow of time is real or not, it cannot be analysed favourably without some contradiction.

That's why I came here. I hope y'all can comprehend, relate, or "taste" what I have set forth unto the table. — Drew747

I'm curious why you used the word 'unto'? Anyway, welcome. There is not much to disagree with. But not much to agree with either. A kind of indifference, really.

One thing that ought to be questioned is the very desirability of 'escape': if our attachment to society is the very condition of our individuality (and, as Baden said, the very condition of self-intelligibility (contra Cartesian atomism)) , it's not too far a stretch to think that the desire to 'escape' is not unlike the desire of Kant's dove, for which "cleaving in free flight the thin air, whose resistance it feels, might imagine that her movements would be far more free and rapid in airless space.” — StreetlightX

Why does that need to be questioned? I perhaps take a more Rousseau approach and see the system as the primary issue or problem that restricts our cognitive capacity to naturally evolve, that latter being that we have the tools but we are just not made aware of how to use it because of society (like in Wall-e); those with pathological disorders that have attachment issues fail to 'cut the umbilical cord'.

From birth, the process of individualization is the process of socialization. It's no coincidence that the older we get and the more we consider ourselves a developed individual the more socialized we tend to be. The only true individuals (in the sense of being non-socialized) are babies and the insane. — Baden

Am I not articulating myself correctly? I am speaking of self-reflective determination within this said-system. I understand what you are saying, but what I am having trouble with is what this 'individualisation' actually is and whether we have the cognitive tools - i.e. reason - that renders us capable through consciousness to transcend the conditioning or determinative role that makes us imitate this 'individual' as an identification process to our social environment. I am not talking about being non-socialised, I am talking about transcending it and being capable of recognising the psychosocial processes and whether our opinions are formed by learned conditioning through the continuous interaction or immersion into environmental and social influences, simulating prominent role models that become ones self-regulatory mechanism and behavioural pattern. Is everything we are merely sensory experience?

The construction of an 'individual’ is nothing more than an adaptation to an external system that we unconsciously internalise that becomes the same system for our self-regulatory processes; our will, values and belief-systems and any changes to this system vis-a-vis new experiences merely alter that brings me to the concern of whether we are cognitively capable of self-reflective determination or are we just a system mimicking another system. I do not think that the sea/waves is a solid example of what I am attempting to convey; the attachment is still there, but with the capacity to detach should we so choose. Are we enabled with the cognitive tools that would allow us to transcend learned social behaviour and become 'self-aware' and empathetic, or is what you refer to as empathy or morality just a shallow system of social imitation?

It doesn't make sense to me when you say:

It's not just that the individual has no hope against society, it's that that "individual" does not even exist as an "individual". — Baden

So, exactly where is the hope? Is there an individual or not? And if so, what is it? Is it as I say, moral consciousness, our capacity to reason and transcend this narrow and inescapable micro-social position? But, if you are saying what I think you are saying, then when I say "authentic individual" and the "construct of the individual (i.e. faux)" than essentially you and I are saying the same thing. I agree with @StreetlightX but what I got from his OP was that we cannot escape and that we are nothing more than an 'incentive structure' or empiricist in a way that we are our sensory experiences that led to what frightened me in his thinking: if this is the case, what type of society can we frame or create that works to the greatest benefit of the system (a type of system against the system), like using ideology itself against itself, the same 'faux' construct but just another version of it.

What happens to rationalism then? Are we never able to access the tools we have in the mind to learn and escape the apparent inescapable?

How it is you seemingly quote Zizek and yet purport relevance to what kind of relation to society it is that we want to cultivate is beyond me. That is how the faux 'authenticity' behind genocides are legitimised just like how power is reinforced by so-called 'individualism' where opinions move in masses. IF there is authenticity within this consciousness, there would be universal morals and genocide would cease to exist since the 'poetry' here is ideology.

I'm TimeLine. I like roasted pumpkins.

But I don't see an either-or relation here: we are individuals to the extent that we belong to a 'system', or rather a series of systems that generally travels under the name 'society': the relevant question is one of relation - what kind of relation to society is it that we want to cultivate? Not: are we better off in a society of not? The latter question isn't one that can be entertained in any meaningful way, as far as I'm concerned. — StreetlightX

That latter question is a very dangerous (albeit kind of awesome) place to tread and you would need to tread carefully. I fear empiricism because moral consciousness is not sourced by an ability to transcend the system making us trapped by our sensory experiences, which would make it justifiable to cultivate a system best suited to this inevitable subservience and that is what politics, community, family do as each interpret and formulate system upon system in an attempt reconcile the individual with society. From my favourite film, Ghost in a Shell (the anime of course): “If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. It's simple: over-specialise, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death.”

What we refer to as 'individualism' borne from this system is ideological; are the answers that I give in a survey my opinion as an 'individual' or have the questions been formulated to reinforce collective standards that I align myself with and in doing so trick myself into believing that the choices I make benchmark my individualism in contrast to those who choose differently to me. This 'individualism' - as is visible in the US - is an imagined construct where the system has enabled the conditions that mirage individual consciousness when really they blindly move in masses. But it does not make our capacity of thinking with an authentic conscience or consciousness impossible.

Why do we need to separate free-will and determinism and create some sort of conflict between the two? Why do we need to separate the individual and society? Can we not just transcend through it?

I think this is important to emphasise because too often - in my opinion - does social discussion focus on the 'psychology' or the ‘values' of individuals involved in any one situation. — StreetlightX

How can it not, though? Is there an individual or are we collectively better off being saturated by such a system that wall-e is nothing more than a disruption to this absence of self-awareness? Was the BNL system formulated to save humanity from self-destruction, the destruction of individualism or has being on 'autopilot' as mindless drones actually destroyed humanity? It is a very difficult dilemma because the problem, for me anyway, is moral development or the lack thereof because what initiates any authentic understanding of the difference between right and wrong is demonstrated by a type of individual consciousness. This consciousness is found in the curiosity that leads to love, Eva, the one in search of 'life' because if we do what we are told as automatons - including acts of "good" - that don't stem from this individual consciousness, everyone would be sociopathic since none of our feelings would be real.

A person without any sense of moral consciousness would indeed be compelled to a system that takes advantage of the infantile or instinctual nature of the brain and so the axiom to this mind control is psychological because it stimulates the pleasures of leading the 'path of the least resistance'.

Yes, I suppose it could in some situations. But, to go back to the example, what business is it of a few twenty-somethings, who were not even there, who have read the anecdote and recoiled in horror at what they see as a roomful of old dinosaurs being “inappropriate” towards their “victim”, to be directing their outrage at those on the inside, who were, as they saw it, just having a laugh? — Sapientia

People spend more time at work then they do at home and some people - like myself - depend on the financial income to survive; such aggressive comments breed a toxic culture and ultimately lead to this "male-dominated environment" and it is the latter that is unethical. The organisational values like integrity that an industry or company hold is a whole lot broader than one simple remark because - while it may be 'isolated' (though I doubt this considering that the environment is now male-dominated) - it is nevertheless in contravention of these values and that's that. It is journalism we are talking about and therefore there is no excuse that it is male dominated rather than, say, a profession that requires physical duress. To say, "well, bad luck to the woman who can't survive that" is unethical as it ignores the rights of women in principle, even if she has adapted to this toxic environment.

Not to turn the attention away from the subject, but what is with the ageist remarks by the way? Dinosaurs, twenty-somethings? I think that once you pass 21 you should be mature enough to understand the difference between your left and right hand.

A toxic culture? What about the testimony of someone who was actually there, and therefore knows the culture better than you do? Why must this culture change, rather than those women who can't hack it? Clearly some women are more than capable. They'd be better suited for the job. Working for The Sun isn't for everyone. — Sapientia

It is not a matter of being there or not, that is the point, and what a dumbass thing to say the women who can't hack it should not be there; no, the obnoxious one's should not be there. And what, so if you are not present in a domestic violence situation, does that mean that a frightened wife who testifies for her husband is actually engaging in an honest critique of the situation? Just because Sue is engaging in the same obnoxious behaviour does not suddenly make her equal or the vulgarity justifiable. It just makes her adaptable to a toxic environment. That completely rejects talent, intelligence, capacity because of aggressive men who rise up the ranks not because they are talented, intelligent and capable but because they bully their way up.

I'm not sure I agree with this attitude that the world around me must change to my liking, rather than adapting myself to better suit my environment. — Sapientia

It is the same the other way around, mate, the world is not a philosophy forum where people are protected by the vastness of virtual space. You sign a contract where you say you will comply with the rules and the rules are clear, otherwise, don't work there.

It's a cheap trick to say that drugs harm chromosomes when chromosomes are easy to harm. — charleton

We really need a facepalm emoticon.

Do you even know what "percentage" means? 11% is a low percentage whether the overall number is two, twenty, twenty million, or twenty billion. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is like talking to a wall. Do you not value human life?

Do you not see that this is extremely faulty inductive reasoning? Suppose that 11% of people saw a certain object as green, while 89% saw that same object as blue. Would you insist on the conclusion that the object is green? Your argument makes no sense at all. As in the case with the 11% which say that the object is green, I would say that your 11% who are purportedly addicted, just have difficulty describing what they experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, sorry buddy, we're done.

Alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco, and many other common substances have the same risks when you ignore the importance of saying how much and for how long exactly. — charleton

Oh sorry, can you clarify, they have the same risks on the brain? No need to divert the attention away from the fact that this thread is about drugs, though, right?

Ok, so we're down to 11%. To me, that's already a low percentage. Now how many of those who meet the criteria for "dependence", meet the criteria for "addiction"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Did you click on and read the link that defines clinical addiction? IF 11% of 183.3 million is more than 20 million, how is that a low percentage to you?

Ok, so now you say:

That's why I claim that your use of statistics is "bullshit". The statistics are meaningless with such usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you said:

Check any statistics, they're all over the internet. — Metaphysician Undercover

Just reminding you of your doucheness.

I would assume that if 11% of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would say that it has "addictive potential". I would also assume that if 1%, or if.1%, or .01%, or .001%, (etc.), of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would also claim that it has "addictive potential". — Metaphysician Undercover

I wouldn't claim anything. The professionals are.

So, they claim, "LSD causes chromosome damage". You see the deficiency of this claim don't you? In the way that I stated the example, there is no control group, and it is highly probable that the few incidents of chromosome damage were caused by something other than the LSD. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is clarity around what these percentages mean, around the likelihood vis-a-vis excessive use whereby the potential damage could occur, the risks to the brain if taken for a lengthy period of time etc. How you read the statistics is your problem, but it is not actually a problem.

Do you believe that the addiction to sweets is caused by sugar? If so, why don't you turn your rant toward a real problem sugar addiction, rather than a pseudo problem, THC addiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

:-|

What the frickin heck? You are pure evil.

When people don't fall for my time delay traps.

When people respond with lol.

You say:

Check any statistics, they're all over the internet. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you said:

Statistics are bullshit. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not sure, but as one who clearly advocates the use of drugs, perhaps this may be an indication that it is not all that good for you?

Are you saying that THC is not addictive? What is addictive to you? For me, it is a clinical term so I checked the "statistics" and while it differs in its addictive potential from other more powerful drugs like amphetamines, "the belief that cannabis had no addictive potential was, in part, based on observations that withdrawal of the drug did not result in spontaneous physical withdrawal symptoms in animals or humans. However 1 in 9 cannabis users meet the clinical criteria for dependence as described by the ICD10 or DSM-IV. In summary, based on the latest insights, cannabis should be considered as a drug with addictive potential; albeit the conditions for this addictive potential to emerge are somewhat different from those known from the "typical" drugs such as amphetimines or opiates where tolerance, dependence and withdrawal are robust phenomena after repeated use. Thus, under appropriate conditions, it can be demonstrated that THC and related cannabinoid agonists have an addictive potential and fulfill the reward-related behavioral criteria for drugs of abuse."

Another key feature of all addictive drugs is the increase in dopamine levels where the brain reinforces the positive and pleasurable effects it has that causes a person to continue the use that only increases in strength as one becomes more tolerant to it.

I guess I'm addicted to the hammer that I use every day — Metaphysician Undercover

This is just... yeah, well, awkward moment.

The rest of your rubbish doesn't even merit a response.

The "yawn" was justified, as it was directed at someone being judgemental from an outside perspective, either failing to get, or wilfully overlooking, the mutual understanding of those on the inside. — Sapientia

Can it not also work in reverse? The "yawn" itself was unnecessary and whilst the act cannot be constituted as harassment legally here in Australia, repeated and tolerance to such negative behaviour breeds a poor workplace environment that can be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of others. Clearly the aforementioned has a toxic culture considering it is openly "male-dominated" which can only mean that a woman' survival would require such supposed "thick skin" and so how many women who do not have this "thick skin" but have more talent and capacity then the men sitting around that table are working elsewhere because of it?

Culture is essentially a top-down process and bad leadership enables bad men to behave badly and this all comes down to communication; jokes and a positive working environment and culture is necessary, but within reason. The comment "yawn" is an indication that there is no appreciation for how others feel and whether there was mutual consent between the two parties, there was no inherent respect for the effects such behaviour has overall in the organisation, the industry, and other members present in the room. As one who has experienced bullying by men that took advantage of my vulnerability, I feel tired of having to develop this thick skin when it is not who I am just to survive. The effects of that experience took years and a lot of distress for me to overcome and I took it with me to my new job that I become vigilant of the behaviour of others because of it. It is not fair that I am not allowed to be myself because idiots are dominating.

Drug test kits for party going kids trying MDMA are supported by the Australian Federal Police "Drug testing isn’t perfect. Not only will some people take what they have anyway, some might be allergic to a substance in the drug and not know it. But senior figures including former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Palmer say they would support pill testing to reduce the danger for young people who choose to take ecstasy. “I have no problem with it at all, I think it makes absolute sense to try to test the quality of the drugs that people are taking,” Mr Palmer said. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It still does not change my initial remarks against the practicality of using drug-tests, but please don't get me wrong, I support the use of them. This was arranged at the music festival and I remember watching that program for which the article is written and many figures on the show were against the use of them. For instance, our Ice epidemic is mostly in rural country settings, amongst friends in backyard parties and not at festivals and access to these kits are not readily available. It also provides a false security and that the purity of any drug does not suddenly change the danger factor, as said in the end of the article:

Can you imagine people bowling up to a festival with their drugs in their hands and happily testing them outside the gates? They’ll have to do it before they get to the festival. I can never see that happening in this country.

This is the problem and another diversion used to fuel your argument. The government will never endorse the kits despite what Palmer stated. And perhaps you should read between the lines, rather than speak about these isolated groups at music festivals:

"Drug use shows no sign of slowing down at festivals, along with its the deceptive marketing and sale to attendees. It's pretty clear as forms of oblivious consumption remain a plague... "I've seen so many terrible things happen to people at events; people die, people run their bodies and minds, and have years of lasting effects from using these substances... [festival-goers] just aren't aware what's going on most of the time."

And what exactly is the point you are trying to make? You come on here with your "statistics is bullshit" rant and iteration of the disgust you feel towards the word addiction, which is a 'disorder characterised by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences', but so? What is your point? And then you have the audacity to say:

When a very small percentage of those engaged in an activity become addicted to it, why would you categorize that activity as addictive? — Metaphysician Undercover

"Small percentage" from where? Which "statistics" did you get that from, or are you carefully trying to use such expressions to somehow verify a moot point? Whether a person is "addicted" to marijuana or any other drug or not, continuous and repeated use over a lengthy period of time as highlighted in my post that shows the effects it has on the brain leads to a cycle of continuous use. That may not be an "addiction" in the way that you are attempting to highlight, but it is certainly disorder characterised by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.

In Australia, bullying is considered 'repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards workers or a group of workers, that creates a risk to health and safety' and note the keyword repeated. Common sense should dictate as per the article that the nice girl wont psychologically or emotionally cope being taunted by men and as one who has experienced this I can assure you that this risk to health and safety is real. The workplace requires a vigilance to inappropriate behaviour despite there being Sue Carrol' and to condescendingly say "yawn" to this is, well, wrong.

Which is why the argument for being able to obtain some drugs from legalised sources would be a very useful way of minimising harm is a powerful one. — Jake Tarragon

Have you watched the show The Wire? There was a part of the series where they experimented with the idea of 'Hamsterdam' which was an attempt to fight the battle of drugs by legalising it in one area and it worked wonders for the community in general. The 'free zone' however was a hell-hole spreading disease and prostitution to continue their drug addiction. The Wire is probably one of my most favourite TV series of all time, you should watch it.

The simple answer, however, is no. To legalise what is very harmful to people is to programme disaster.

Not fully relevant to your quote I realise, but here is a question - would you ban dangerous sports and outdoor pursuits? Plenty of people get killed and injured in this way. — Jake Tarragon

Plenty of people get killed driving. You are committing a fallacy by asking this question as it diverts the attention away from what we are discussing. I would, however, ban the use of sports-related drugs.

I'm not interested in trying to sustain a conversation with someone who doesn't take me at my word when I report what I know from experience. Google 'drug test kit', and you might educate yourself a little. :-} — Janus

How does your word matter to me without any practicality in what you say? In the real world, a drug-test kit is not practical, not for the millions of young people who access drugs from sources like friends or acquaintances. If you have some facts, why is it difficult for you to just show me?

I can only you give facts when it concerns my own experience. Statistics are bullshit. So it's you who should stop blabbing, and show me some facts based in cold hard experience, rather than bullshit. When I was a kid, it was a well-documented "fact", that LSD causes chromosome damage. You seem to be spouting the same sort of "fact" about the addictiveness of marijuana. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since when is statistics bullshit? It may not be all-encompassing, but it does verify trends particularly relating to illness and mortality. Calm down and go back where you will see the plethora of information and facts that I have shown. Cold hard experience? What, all the young people I have seen damaged from the drugs that they have taken? Read my first post. No, I am not talking about addictiveness at all, again, go back and re-read what I have written.

That's simply not true; I have known quite a few MDMA enthusiasts who always tested to make sure they were getting the real thing. The world is full of many dumb people and a few smart ones. Legislating against drug use won't change that. You are barking up the wrong tree. — Janus

Of course you do, and we can verify this by... your word? So, are you saying that we should legislate for drug-use? Having a conversation with you is indeed barking up the wrong tree.

What I am trying to tell you Janus is that kids do not make informed choices about the drugs that they take. A person who is conscious of its dangers, who would sit on the internet and make a purchase of a drug testing kit, usually do not take drugs.

The North Americans really are used to the easy life... My days, what has become of the world. Nietzsche's last men really are here :o — Agustino

Nietzsche clearly never met an Australian woman. There are certainly a number of privileged whingers here who cry out in anger because mummy didn't cut the crusts of their jam sandwich correctly before stomping off to live a life of leisure, but how a person copes with the difficulties that they face and perhaps even uses it to their advantage is character that transcends nationality and gender.

Drug-testing kits? Do you realise just how unpractical that would be for the millions of kids out there that have access to drugs? 1/3 of teenagers who live where medical marijuana is legal obtain their drugs from other people's prescriptions. And with the ongoing defence of the use of drugs, these kids think that what they are taking is not harmful or that it is just another "consumer item" like young people who abuse anabolic steroids that completely disrupts their growth and health; until the effects become clear that is when they become conscious of how dangerous it is.

And do you realise just how absurd you sound by actually comparing mortality rates to the use of the drug? It is what the person, their family, friends, the community and the economy experience while they are alive that is the issue we are attempting to ascertain in order to prevent the prospect of death.

Note that Hallucinogens are not included in Timeline's list. MDMA (Ecstasy) is, and I think of it as a quasi-hallucinogen, which isn't addictive and isn't anywhere near as destructive as the other drugs on the list. — Janus

Those 'who engage in high risk consumption of drugs' include amphetamine-type stimulants, tranquillizers and sedatives, hallucinogens, solvents and inhalants, but LSD is no longer as popular as other drugs. What young people purchase on the market is mostly not pure MDMA and so the effects of an addiction to drugs varies because of the other substances laced to it and nevertheless still targets the same areas of the brain that itself can influence the continuity and dependency particularly around withdrawal and the psychological effects; developing a tolerance to a drug increases the need to consume more.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/23/study-hallucinogenic-mushrooms-safest-recreational-drug-lsd

I never experienced any such withdrawal. I drank lots, smoked lots of weed, and every once in a while I would quit one or the other for a month or two to see what it was like. I don't remember any withdrawal problem. Eventually my usage lessened. I do have withdrawal problems when I quit coffee though. So if you judge the drug based on the withdrawal, coffee appears to be worse for me than weed or alcohol. — Metaphysician Undercover

What you experienced is not of concern to me, it is what the majority experience and while you may be an isolated case that contradicts the statistics, the fact is a large proportion do go through withdrawal and a great many other detriments to their health and well being. If you want to go on the defence because of your personal connection to it, by all means, but I don't know the real you or what you genuinely do, so stop blabbing about you and start showing me facts.

Having said that, the life and times we find ourselves in tend to provoke some kind of philosophical agitation in many people. Like an oyster working on some irritating sand in its shell. Maybe a pearl follows... or maybe we are just scratching an itch. — 0 thru 9

I appreciate quietism, but restricted as a subjective experience and not as an applied theoretical practice like a neo-pragmatic tradition. It is more like existential psychotherapy, something I was introduced to in Israel. There is a therapeutic aspect to philosophy, from a psychological and linguistic angle, that ameliorates a clarity and articulates answers we may not be able to do so independent of this philosophical process. We construct how to appreciate or understand things that are related to us. The overall practice and practicality is therefore ambiguous because only we would know ourselves enough to know what is important to us. So, we take away what is necessary from the theoretical and apply it to ourselves. This is in sharp contrast to just being theoretical. It is like the relationship between astrophysics and cosmology.

The one negative is with withdrawal nightmares. If I find myself in a context where I can't smoke at all before sleeping, then I will sleep terribly, and if I do, I'll have the most psychotic ultra vivid dreams ever. — Akanthinos

Is this what compels you to continue, or is there a sense of apathy to your general health and well-being? Your initial reasons were accessibility, but as this is followed by being a "bum" I take it that you never really had much ambition or guidance. The fact that you point out that your friends were fine with it also makes me assume your environment is not the best. I guess the question is whether this occurred before or after this eventual continuity.

I would not be the person I am today without the drug use I experienced when I was younger. Clearly the effects are long term. Also, I would be dissatisfied with myself and unhappy if I didn't belief that those effects were beneficial towards making me the person that I am today. However, some of the short term effects, specifically involving experimentation and over usage, were harmful. So I disagree with you, I think that the long term effects are beneficial, while the short term effects are harmful. This is common to many medical procedures, short term pain for long term gain. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am unable to ascertain the actuality of your situation because I am unaware of all the details, but just as William Styron said, his addiction to alcohol indeed helped him with his creative work and capacity to socialise until he stopped drinking and experienced withdrawal (in the neural networks); his brain no longer had the capacity to communicate as it would have naturally prior to his dependence and as such for several months following experienced profound sense of anxiety and doom that led him to almost-suicide. Luckily, he was able to survive those months through medical intervention until one day he experienced an epiphany that happiness in life is actually available (which is basically his brain now functioning naturally) and he healed from that point. He says that the terrible experience of depression and anxiety, now overcome and never returning to alcohol, has made him feel more happier than he has ever felt before. So, perhaps from a different angle, those that are able to overcome any addiction or substance abuse do fare a greater advantage.

The problem here is that clearly not everyone is as lucky.

I am trying to present a reasoned approach that balances harms and benefits. — Jake Tarragon

Where? I went back and re-read everything you have said and I see very little of this "reasoned approach" you speak of and I guess you can tell yourself what you like, but you are not actually making any arguments at all. I could have a more intellectually thrilling conversation with a dried leaf. And no, I am not talking about hashish.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that if you had a hidden agenda that supports the use of recreational drugs, that you would attempt to divert the facts by discussing how "hidden beliefs" in the discussion is crucial? Your paranoia is rather unbecoming.

It is a hypothetical question with the intention of leading to an absurd result. What is the point of travelling tirelessly to a dead-end when reason dictates that there is enough facts that we can work with.

Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome is a real mental health concern.

Reason is the fundamental tool, otherwise you'll find yourself sliding gleefully along a slippery slope.