[twomoonsbysurf]

>almost always follow up with "“don’t do drugs, instead do what I tell you to do. Read my self help book or convert to my religion. My values are the best values.”"

Eh, it's a fine line that once crossed, you don't get to come back from.

I'm glad I stopped drugs when I did. If I could go back in time, I would have never had started doing drugs in my teenage years but unfortunately it was part of my family culture.

The problem with your advice is that it comes with the risk of grievous bodily harm. Not just to one's self, in the case of: if you're predisposed to mental health problems (such as schizophrenia, etc.) or physical health problems (such as heart palpitations or other heart problems), but potentially to other people: if you're using drugs and accidentally affect someone else negatively (physically or emotionally).

I think it's naive to encourage people to do drugs, as it speaks from a place of "Drugs have always been fun and good for me. Therefore they'll always be fun and good for you!" Much like the dogmatic philosophy you mentioned-- no offense, but you seem to be representing a similar dogmatic philosophy but at the other-side of the spectrum (of drug encouragement).

Also, investigating a drug does not in any way guarantee it will not traumatize you or negatively effect you (or others) forever.

Drugs have a high risk of being dangerous, hazardous, addicting, etc.-- that's why they're controlled substances.

[pmoriarty]

"The problem with your advice is that it comes with the risk of grievous bodily harm."

I hope you don't ride in cars or cross streets, because they also come with risks of grievous bodily harm.

"Drugs have a high risk of being dangerous, hazardous, addicting, etc.-- that's why they're controlled substances."

Food and sex can be addictive, and plenty of people's health is ruined by them.

Also, plenty of dangerous, hazardous, and addictive drugs like alcohol and cigarettes are not controlled substances.

Psychedelic and cannabis use was associated with minorities, the counterculture, and antiwar protestors. They were seen as a threat to the status quo. Those and some sensationalistic media scares were the real reasons they were banned.

[braingenious]

> you seem to be representing a similar dogmatic philosophy but at the other-side of the spectrum (of drug encouragement).

My advice to do drugs is immediately followed by a qualifier that states that you should not do drugs if you would prefer not to do them. I can’t think of anything further from dogmatism than “do x thing unless you don’t feel like doing it.”

> The problem with your advice is that it comes with the risk of grievous bodily harm. Not just to one's self, in the case of: if you're predisposed to mental health problems (such as schizophrenia, etc.) or physical health problems (such as heart palpitations or other heart problems), but potentially to other people: if you're using drugs and accidentally affect someone else negatively (physically or emotionally).

This is entirely addressed by parts a and b of what I wrote.

Out of curiosity, what activities are guaranteed to not negatively affect anyone else emotionally or physically? If that’s the hard and fast rule that you live by, I’d love to know what your average day is like.

I’m glad that you figured out that you’d personally prefer not to do drugs. It’s great that you had the opportunity to gain that knowledge through direct experience. In a way, you could say that what you learned about yourself and your life through drugs was something that you wouldn’t have learned otherwise… like hidden knowledge or a personal enlightenment. I’m sure that you would agree that this deep and personal “knowledge” that you possess about drugs probably couldn’t have become so apparent and impactful to you by simply reading a comment about the concept of drugs on an article about toad venom on HN.