Pure Ego, never mind the past
I am not going on dictionaries I am going on personal experience, and incase you don't realize, cocaine and heroin do have a detrimental effect on many people, thus society, in my "opinion"
I understand exactly what you're saying, but what purpose does cocaine, lsd, psylosybin, heroin actually fulfill, now keep in mind that I have done all but heroin, but honestly what is their purpose. I honestly can not agree with the control of marijuana, I see no purpose in it's control, but I do respect your opinion to the fullest, I see a purpose in Novacaine, Morphine, Codein, and Oxycodone, but the rest are recreational, now lets not get ahead of ourselves, these drugs will always be around, but I agree with you they should be controlled.
To be honest I do not see a problem with the conrol of any substance, I can go down the street and get anyone of these just as you can, it is really about self control, but as a very wise woman once said, "Anarchy rapidly becomes a free for all", what would society become without the control of certain substances, such as cocaine and heroin, especially cocaine, atleast half of the people I know do it every weekend and a good tenth are addicted to it.
...part of the issue here is that I'm not a pharmacist, nor am I a chemist, neither a medical doctor - I can't tell you why they prescribe this or that. But I do know of (normal, everyday) older people who have been prescribed stuff that you wouldn't expect. Sht, they even sold root beer out of the pharmacy back in the day
That's okay. I know people are constantly misunderstanding the difference between addiction and chemical dependency. Part of the problem is that even professionals in the field will often use these two terms interchangeably. I agree that cannabis does not create the same physical dependency that drugs like cocaine and opiates do.
Going back to the original state of nature, my two cents is that "justice" is merely another term for an ill-defined sense of societal equilibrium -- the effect of karma balancing itself -- but it is just a sense. Thus, there is no such thing as an undisputed definition: it looks different to each observer and can only be accurately gauged for each individual. For instance, murder is generally accepted as bad, but self defense resulting in the death of the aggressor isn't necessarily bad. The question, then, becomes who was the first aggressor. And that often depends on who you ask.
