-61 votes

My Argument Against Marijuana

Update:

I'm intrigued by many of the comments.

First, of all, many people have yelled at me for pointing a gun at their head or something. WTF? Did you read what I wrote?

Second, although some people have been pretty comfortable with the point I've made even though they disagree, most people are quite visceral about what I've said.

I have 41 downvotes at the moment. Why? Because I've made a moral argument against the voluntary choice to use drugs including marijuana. It's frankly the same position, if perhaps formulated sort of specifically, as Ron Paul.

I said that Marijuana is not some big demon, and sure, if you've been through hell that sort of thing might help you. I'm not condemning you.

What do you think Ron Paul is all about, why do people worship him? He's a moral man. So, in fact, is someone like Alex Jones. They have a sense of commitment of their duties to themselves, their families, their God. There is a sense of higher moral purpose.

Now, that alone doesn't make marijuana bad, but I'm trying to say that having a 'goodie-two-shoe' 'boy scout' commitment to doing right is a good thing, and we need that attitude. We are awake in that we aren't naive, and we think for ourselves, but we must have that commitment and be proud of that aspect of our character.

Okay, so I also think that this sort of do-the-right-thing morality involves staying away from drugs if you can. Chemicals that alter you mental state. Why's that such a controversial position? The CIA planting drugs in communities, the DOJ putting people in jail for it - can't you see this as a two-pronged attack?

So, you're not evil if you smoke pot. But, if I wanted my kids to aspire to something better in life, to do their duty to God - whichever God - if I was looking for that 'spark' in someone... I'd tell my kids to stay away, and I do grow skeptical of people who smoke pot. Look, I have good friends that are liberal who think that if everything in society isn't circumscribed by law and regulation, then surely everything will go wrong and everyone will die. They are smart and well-intentioned, but they're wrong. They don't think quite right. Likewise, smoking pot is not this guarantee of being something bad or whatever, but I would automatically think something's not right.

And it's the same as if I wanted to go play sports with friends, or board games, or see a show of some kind and they want to get drunk and bang girls they don't care about. I'd have a problem with those people.

Everyone's different and have different tastes, but certain qualities and activities are just of a certain type that borders on that edge of nihilism and narcissism or what have you.

Anyway, some of this is private opinion. But I KNOW that this community is really motivated by the drug issue, and I am POLITICALLY ON BOARD with that issue. However, I thought it would be constructive to bring in a counter opinion. Look, some of us think ending the drug war will save our communities. Others think that spreading hemp plants all over the world like Johnny Appleseed will save the universe. That's deranged, and I was trying to start an adult conversation without relying on sophomoric talking points to say that perhaps drugs are really not a good thing, even if criminalization is a horrific overreach, and so perhaps this community needs to think about how much we want to celebrate marijuana.

I don't get why people get so pissed when you disagree with stuff they do. I didn't call names and presented a rational argument. I DON'T have to accept what you do, and I DON'T have to ignore it because it's what you want. What I can't do is ever force or coerce anyone. But on a public forum - you better damn believe I have a right to piss people off if I think it'll make the world a little better. And my goal isn't to just piss people off, but make an argument in spite of whether people choose to be pissed off.

41 down votes because I said marijuana might sort of be bad - I hate the 'this community is such and such' or 'I might have to quit'. No, not at all! I'm not going there. But I'm a little dismayed that there seems to be a big pothead situation here.

***********************************************************

I have been wanting to do this for a while, I'm finally in the mood.

So, this is basically an abstract/moral argument.

Happiness is the goal of life, not the purpose of it. While we meaningfully pursue our purpose, we are happy. Purpose includes basic material objectives, and abstract spiritual objective. Eating good food can make you happy. Rest can make you happy. Exercise can make you happy. Creating can make you happy. Social activity can make you happy.

Now, there are these 'drug' things. They can be anything from refined sugar (maybe), or caffeine (better argument), to marijuana or coke. I would argue that any drug is a moral negative. That doesn't mean enjoying a coffee is evil, but all else being equal, one would hope to pursue life's goals for their own sakes. This argument will make more sense in a minute. Of course, coffee has utility: alertness, creative brain power, but in this case I'm talking about that warm feeling itself as an end in and of itself.

Marijuana has utility, in theory, but the main reason why people use it is for that feeling in and of itself. And this is in fact why I distinguish alcohol from marijuana. It is a matter of intensity. Still, I won't beat around the bush. I think that alcohol is a strong moral negative, and that people drink it way more often than what might be proper. So we can conflate the two. All I'm saying is that mere marijuana use equates to heavy alcohol use. Equivocate with me if you choose, my abstract point remains the same.

The problem, then, with marijuana is that it induces a state of felt happiness. Let's discuss psychological reward mechanisms. Bringing a little science in here, we can say that generally happiness is the result of the sensation produced by dopamine in the brain. Basic survival tasks have been fine tuned and balanced by millions of years of evolution to reward survival achievements: eating, sleeping, sex, social activity with an appropriate amount of dopamine. Apparently, creative thinking, strategic planning is a uniquely human survival mechanism also rewarded.

There's more to it! With memory and conceptual thinking, we can associate these building block reward mechanisms with abstract spiritual successes. When Jesus talks about hunger and the bread of life, he equates the sensation of pure joy a starving person receives from having bread with the abstraction of a spiritual starvation and a spiritual feast.

The point is that this mechanism is real, and physiological, but it's the foundation of all our abstract and spiritual pursuits as well.

I concur that people *can* use marijuana and be functional and purposeful people. However, this is often not the case despite exceptions, and there are downsides not often discussed.

What drugs, including marijuana and alcohol for that matter do is that they induce a dopamine release related not to any act or achievement (that's natural and proper) but rather to the act of usage and using the drug itself. This throws the reward mechanism out of whack.

With heavy drugs, like heroine or cocaine, you see people destroy themselves and those they love because of this interrupted reward loop.

But, even marijuana has a bad effect. A person can still have a purpose while using, but marijuana consumes much more of that reward function than a mere 'thing you do' should. This means that you are wasting 'purpose' resources no matter what when you use.

Granted, let's say you grew up in a crappy household. Psychologically, you might be devoting so many resources to coping with that that drug use might actually free up resources by suppressing the effect of those issues. This isn't a good argument for drugs, if you can't gather.

So drugs interfere with your basic moral purpose and happiness mechanism. And this in turn prevents healthy moral and emotional growth.

Consider the way users act:
1. They are hyper defensive about their drug use. Why is this? Think about how you would feel if a beloved relative died? That person is a source of happiness and being in your life. Marijuana induces an artificial happiness, and so it takes on the role of an artificial loved one. Hence, many (not all) legalizes are hyper defensive. Losing their beloved grass scares them immensely.
2. Lack of self-awareness. It is well documented that marijuana can induce paranoid thinking. This isn't a political comment. I'm just making the point that I know users personally who get wrapped up in unrealistic ideas and have no self-awareness. Yeah, people can indeed lack self-awareness, but marijuana seems to be forcibly, chemically driving a certain lack of self awareness in people. That includes an awareness of the negative effects of using. Linking to point #1, people's state of fear over losing marijuana is chemically induced by the drug's effect on the brain, but people don't realize this. The feeling comes from their brain chemistry, and they act in response to it, but they have no rational, conceptual awareness of their hyper-defensiveness.

Those are just two examples of the sort of effects drugs have on the brain.

It's immoral because the reward process is so foundational to the greater moral purpose of pursuing virtue and a better life.

From a political perspective, the law doesn't have a place using coercive violence against drug users. But that's a general point that is so much broader than the issue of drugs.

Plus, despite my light-handed approach to this issue, drugs do in fact cause enormous harm to people and communities - this is just a fact. I like more foundational abstract arguments, but the basic pragmatic one works pretty well too.

So, that's my argument.

Like I said, we probably drink alcohol too much, but hey we do it. So, if a marijuana user is reading this, I might expect at least someone to think: "You know, he's pretty much right, but of course a vice is a vice and there's no mortal sin in a little smoke here and there." That's all I'm getting at.

Of course, if my argument is very valid, people will freak out in defense of their drug use and call me names.

******

I've thought about it just a bit more.

The idea is that morality is thought of in terms of general principles that inspire moral growth in a direction, as opposed to black and white. It isn't about demonization or 'drugs are bad'.

It's about, which direction do you want to go in.

I'm saying we should go in that direction of greater balance. Balance between physiology and spirituality. We have to eat, and sleep, and so forth. It affects our chemistry and therefore psychology. So we should try to be healthy so our chemistry is balanced. This means more spiritual energy to pursue the heights, if you will.

It's very clear that drug use is an unhealthy, unbalancing activity. That's what I'm trying to say.

While, therefore, drugs aren't 'bad' so-to-speak, I think I can legitimately argue for treating them with extreme reservation.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So instead of debiliting MAOI

prescription drugs - you chose a different route. Nothing wrong with that as long as there is no abuse like with the synthetic anti-depressants.

Too much of anything is not healthy...herbs, drugs, food, water, relational co-dependencies...

What would be ideal is your freedom from any kind of enhancement. I hate that your military service left you needing this kind of help. But certainly there are multitudes of people getting similar help from prescription drugs who have not been what you have been through.

Why is that OK? Because someone is making lots of money.

Hang in there and keep taking care of your wife and babies...

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I gave you thumbs up

Because on this site there is so NOT many people that bring up this topic with any actual thoughts AND experience put behind it.

I agree to some extent to many of your arguments.

The problem with drugs (and by drugs I also mean alcohol, tobacco and modern cigarettes that don't have any tobacco) in terms of their popularity and attractiveness is not the restriction put on them (unlike what majority of people on this site seem to think). The strongest reason for people becoming drug addicts is availability of drugs. All drugs are strong psychotropic substance. Many people don't understand that any drug no matter what the case in fact kills brain cells. Now for modern average Joe many of theose cells are out of use and hence 'redundant' - that is why there is 'no effect' by certain drugs on certain people. But it is the damage anyway. And that is not even going into details.

Addiction to drugs is based on a desire for pleasure in the vast majority of cases. Desires in modern days are often mistaken as needs. And this leads directly to slavery. First - to drugs. Second - to those distributing them (no matter if it is legal or not). In this regard legalization of drugs is not a great idea by any means. If people are not familiar with children usage of drugs and how fast it spread while costing almost nothing WITH the ban on (or even worse - if they are OK with this) - I'd hate to see them realizing the mistake of allowing legalization of drugs because even after 6 months of such practice it will be too late.

2 things to note.

I'm not native English speaker so mind my use of language.

Please refrain from antipod type response-comments because I'm not going to respond to them anyway. If anyone wants to have a healthy serious discussion on the subject - personal message is the way to go.

Only as high as i reach can i grow
Only as far as i seek can i go
Only as deep as i look can i see
Only as much as i dream can i be

If marijuana is a "drug"...

then it is the only "drug" ever which is all natural, non-toxic and non addictive. Therefore, to even compare it to harmful substances such as alcohol or caffeine makes no sense whatsoever. Marijuana is simply a natural "enhancer" which takes whatever condition (usually toxic) the individual is already in and naturally intensifies that condition. It doesn't alter anything. It doesn't "induce" happiness, or paranoia or anything else. If you are already happy, you will become happier. If you are already paranoid, you will become more so. With all due respect, the poster should not be pontificating about a subject that they obviously know little or nothing about.

Marijuana Is Addictive

For about 10% of those who try. Not so bad, but you're full of it. Marijuana, if smoked (inhaling burnt carbons) is incredibly toxic. It's as toxic at least as cigarettes. But, it's not nearly as addictive as nicotine, so people smoke cigarettes a lot more than they do marijuana, so the health effects don't turn out as bad.

You're spouting a lot of misconceptions which are contradicted by numerous studies. MJ isn't a demon, but it's no angel.

I'm full of it?

Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If i know virtually nothing about a subject, I keep quiet, and that would be good advice for you. Marijuana is "as toxic at least as cigarettes"? You are joking, right? Nicotine is one of the most toxic, addicting substances known to man, and marijuana is non-toxic, and therefore non-addicting. If marijuana had any toxicity whatsoever, it would be possible to determine at what dose it becomes lethal, but such determination has never been made since no one has ever died from marijuana use. It's not me who is spouting misconceptions, but you who is spouting propaganda, just repeating what the masses have been brainwashed to believe in their Zionist, statist indoctrination. If you are really interested in learning the truth, there are hundreds of hours worth of videos about marijuana on youtube which would be a good place to start.

I was always of the understanding

that happiness is an emotional reaction, and that contentment is a state of being.
Have we been conned by Big Phama that we Must Always Be Happy?
Why can't we be contemplative, anxious, worried, sad, uneasy, despondent?
Why do we always have to be "HAPPY"?

Thanks for sharing your

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think many in the comments are off base by saying because of your position on this issue you are 'anti-liberty' or anything along those lines.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and the right through free speech and peaceful discourse to tell others. That is what I find so great about liberty. We have so many different opinions and viewpoints coming together on key fundamental principles.

I think a more important question to answer is, 'What do you think the federal government should do about marijuana, if anything'?

And drug use merits real time

And drug use merits real time in jail, ones' rights stripped, and ones' public records tarnished? This justifies the necessity and funding for the massive prison industrial complex and the underground elements that coalesce and grow from prison society?

No!

Simple response

If you have any liberty blood flowing through your veins, then why would you even care what others do, if it doesn't affect your personal life?

Are you so pained by a pot smokers infringement on your own personal existence?

If so, then if you were a vegan, you would despise a meat eater for the exact same reason.

Regardless, your argument opposes thoughts/actions that you personally oppose and it is a failed argument.

Even Ron Paul supports this position, so what are you even doing posting here?

One day, I'm gonna' change my name to Dale Lee Paul

I can't resist! :D

My personal reply, not the OP's...

"If you have any liberty blood flowing through your veins, then why would you even care what others do, if it doesn't affect your personal life?"

Liberty does not equate to indifference! Neither does love!

Also, what others do constantly affects my personal life. The reverse is also true, the words that I've written here are affecting you, as the words you have written have affected me. Libertarianism does not equate to solipsism.

"Are you so pained by a pot smokers infringement on your own personal existence?"

Not once did the OP claim that pot smokers infringed on his/her personal existence. Nor did he/she claim that he/she was pained.

"your argument opposes thoughts/actions that you personally oppose"

Please review your quote. Is this worded correctly to express your actually intended sentiment? It confuses me.

"and it is a failed argument."

Is that claim an attempted resolve from the previous phrase, or does it stand alone as merely unelaborated sentiment?

"Even Ron Paul supports this position"

What do you mean by "this" position? If "this" refers to the OP's argument, I might agree. If by "this" you mean your position of "it is a failed argument", I would consider that to be far beyond wild speculation [yet unbelievable]. Although I don't assume it definitive, but from all the information I've gathered from Ron Paul over the years, I'm inclined to think RP would generally agree with the OP's basic moral argument, not that it really matters politically.

Ron Paul's concept of libertarianism is politically radical, but it is perhaps not as morally radical as you may think. I find him morally aligned with this...
http://youtu.be/6RDoYeXCoSE

?

"All I'm saying is that mere marijuana use equates to heavy alcohol use."

No, it doesn't.

Alcoholics are so much more destructive to society, themselves, and their family.

hard to find any facts that

hard to find any facts that would support either argument...

Really?

It's hard to find facts that would support those arguments?

There are reams of medical facts showing alcoholism adversely affects the health of the body, and can cause death. No death has ever been attributed solely to marijuana use.

I have never seen any facts about heavy marijuana users killing thousands of people in car accidents every year. But there are statistics that say 10,000+/- people are killed by drunk drivers yearly.

I have never heard anything about heavy marijuana users beating their spouses and children. But there are many organizations created with the goal to end or diminish drunk driving, and support groups for families devastated and torn apart by an alcoholic member.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

I think I posted on the wrong

I think I posted on the wrong thread. I totally agree with you and those are very good points!

I think we can also make a strong argument that because marijuana has been classified as an illegal substance, it is helping to empower the cartels which dominate the black market and have been implicated in the deaths of nearly 26,000 people in Mexico since 200.!

Well

Seems as if you are passionate about this subject to concoct such an argument. Just asking, is there perhaps a reason behind this? I used to use mj and know many who still do. To each his own. I had a bit of a qualm with your statement "They are hyper defensive about their drug use." You box the user up in the first word of your comment. The "they" mentality creates an "us" vs. "them". The reason MJ users come across as hyper defensive is because when it is being questioned, the argument is most always filled with bias propaganda. It is that stereotyping that creates a "hyper defensive" response. Moral argument aside, it shouldn't even get to the point of question, should never have been illegal in the first place.

Yes, there is personal experience behind the passion

Maybe other social factors are driving it, but close friends and girlfriends who started using always adopted a polarized attitude about it.

Not everyone, but many who made this transition adopted a level of obsession, and also were hyper defensive.

So, apologies for aggressive language.

Even so, notice how I am making no legal arguments. I'm simply saying that I think mj usage is unhealthy.

Wheat is unhealthy, yet who responds to an anti-wheat argument with "You'll never ban our wheat". Granted, no one is trying to ban wheat right now. My point is that I acknowledge that a lot of the defensiveness is reactionary. Still, the immediate jump to the question of legality is a sign that a big concern is defending legality not in defense of liberty, but in defense of usage.

WoW, you had girlfriends who used it?

Send them my way. Thanks.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

How about live and let live..

To abstract the issue, gambling can be a consuming addiction for some, or something that people do every 10 years when they visit Vegas for fun and relaxation. Figure out your own life, and let others figure out theirs. One day I stopped using drugs and alcohol because I decided it was the right thing to do for me. Should I deprive someone else of the lessons life taught me because I think I know what is best for them? I hope not.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

No, you're right

I'm not trying to stop people from using.

But, on the other hand, what's wrong with making an argument warning about the potential harms of gambling?

Marijuana is different though, because it induces a chemical effect on the brain. Gambling exploits a similar mechanism, but externally, not directly.

I'm not a biologist or

I'm not a biologist or anything but i thought most feelings come from the release of biochemicals?

If so, what difference would it make how or what triggers the release of these biochemicals?

What is the difference between smoke processed through the respiratory system, an edible substance processed through the digestive, or flashing lights and loud sounds processed through the eyes or ears?

In the end, do they not all react with the brain to trigger release of some sort of emotion inducing biochemical?

Just wondering, I'm really confused by your distinction between chemical and no-chemical or direct and indirect?

Hindu's have

been using marijuana religiously for 3000+ years (in drink, not smoke), and the presumption that all humans use the drug for recreation is a fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhang

The cannabanoids are relatively harmless, the addiction is not (same as gambling). Sun-light directly induces a chemical response in the human brain much faster than marijuana, so I don't completely understand the distinction between a direct, on an indirect but apparent chemical response to stimuli.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

" This argument will make

" This argument will make more sense in a minute. Of course, coffee has utility: alertness, creative brain power, but in this case I'm talking about that warm feeling itself as an end in and of itself."

Marijuana also has utility my friend. For me getting through Architecture school it gave me alertness after an all-nighter at the drafting board, creativity when I couldn't figure out where to take a design, and the focus to include every detail, since as one famous architect said "God is in the details". You are entitled to your opinion but your morals are based on your religion, not mine.

"Plus, despite my light-handed approach to this issue, drugs do in fact cause enormous harm to people and communities - this is just a fact."

Please elaborate with facts and not your opinion. I'm sorry, but I really take offense to this statement and completely disagree.

I said marijuana has utility.

I said that.

There's evidence of hyper priming, there's also evidence of long term detrimental memory effects.

I'm not making an argument about specifically what marijuana does or doesn't do. I'm saying that you are short-circuiting what life is supposed to be about by recreating through drugs.

I have no idea what "hyper priming" is.

And would like to know your sources for "long term" detrimental memory effects. I've smoked for over 15 years, and before starting my own business, I was the one people came to when they forgot a command for the software we used.

What is life supposed to be about? I'm sure your answer won't be the same as mine.

Hyper Priming

Is where you can make connections between distant ideas - creativity in a way. And obviously the effects of anything and anyone depend on the person. I'm just trying to say that it's not like the side effects of marijuana use are either all good or all bad.

And, having a different perspective on life is why we need liberty. It's why we have freedom of religion, too.

But, if I said to you let's make a society where government runs everything and life will be without choices - but we'll all basically be fed and have free entertainment - wouldn't you think that's wrong.

True, on one level it's wrong just because it doesn't give people the choice. Maybe some would choose that life, and it's okay as long as those who don't want it can choose otherwise.

While that's true, I think that there's more to it.

The reason why in law you are innocent until proven guilty is because in nature you are guilty until proven innocent. God doesn't intervene on our behalf politically. We have rights because we defend them. We have to purposefully understand and stand up for our rights in order to have them. And we reserve that 'positive' action for ourselves, and thus limit the government to 'negative' action (government will not...). Thus we are innocent until the government proves us guilty in law, because the right to act as we choose is something we reserve to ourselves, and in setting up law we limit it to retaliatory actions only. That is, government can't act, only react.

That's why we demand the right to choose our own path. The only argument against us all being slaves is that fundamental belief that we positively choose our own path in life and follow it and defend it.

That's a specific belief. So it's not like we can all go around believing whatever we want and doing what we want. Appreciating liberty is fundamentally accepting the fact that life is purposeful and that we are morally meant - by our own efforts, and by the standards we agree upon with each other - to positively pursue things, to engage in human choice and human action.

My marijuana argument - I won't arrogantly say it's 'proven' - no, it's just my opinion that the one implies the other - is derived from this 'axiom of liberty'. I think induced chemical changes to the brain conflict with the quintessential purpose of life - that positive pursuit, and action.

So, I think at some level we must have the same answer about the basics of what life is supposed to be about. However, don't mistake my argument as saying that I've 'proven' that you have to agree with me.

Do you yourself use?

you ramble as if you are educated through literature, not experience...if so, understand use is individual and not collective. It has done more for my spiritual and artistic development than you could possibly know...and no, I can and have quit many times with no withdrawal symptoms because it is understood by those who use that it is not viable as usurious, only as the person is willing and open for the time they are using.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

I don't use

But my substantial spiritual and creative development in life has come through complex, real experiences, through deep real struggles, and time, and careful aware thought.

I know many users and my understanding isn't based on stereotypes. I point out that there are real effects of use that aren't superficial. But you're proving my point in a way.

The notion that an induced (chemical) state of consciousness as a necessary building block of greater awareness smacks as immediately false. But, I've found that that's the nature of induced states of consciousness - the robustness of their artificiality is what makes them convincingly meaningful.

This is epistemological. We have experience, and then reason to discern truth out of it. It's just a philosophical truth that there isn't truth-in-itself in experience-as-experience. Experience is only proof of experience. When an artificial (induced) experience creates the impression of awareness it seems to be a surefire dead give away of a negative imposition on real, actual moral/spiritual development.

We know experience isn't awareness, so the confluence of the two is a sign of artificiality.

When you find people attacking individuals, and practices

Check out how long they have been on DP.

The vast majority showed up between 14 months ago and 18 months ago.

Certainly not all people that have registered since then are in question, I just find it more than interesting that this influx tries to destroy individual freedom.

Doing research is much more productive that shooting people. That is unless you have an agenda to Control them, then you need the Patriot act and the NDAA.

Isn't it obvious?

TMAN 1 year, 5 months.

Do you think he just woke up to the Constitution, or is he protecting his government job?

I don't smoke anything, but I KNOW what the government has done with the drug war since the 80's. This guy has exposed a LOT by being here.

Convenient

I wonder if six months from now you'll talk about people showing up 18-22 months ago... etc.

No, I'm not attacking anyone. I just know that this is a issue of concern for a lot of people here. That is, it's something people care about and are interested it.

I have a specific opinion about marijuana use: I think it's obviously wrong. But, I mean wrong in the same way that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is wrong. It's not a sin, but I won't have reservations against arguing that it's a bad idea.

I want to have that argument. My goal isn't to force people to think a certain way. I want to discuss my specific reasoning, about reward processes/purpose/morality.

In my opinion, why pot culture isn't coercive, the combination of social pressure and the intense physiological effects of drugs on the brain constitute a danger to people's liberty. Not in terms of external force - a political matter - but from the other direction in terms of internal moral virtue.

Liberty minded people often discuss liberty from both perspectives.

For example: paleo diets, self-reliance, educating yourself. These are as essential topics as voting or organizing for this or that. I'm contributing in that sense, by having a discussion about the lifestyle of liberty.

I'm arguing that drugs are not healthy to a lifestyle of liberty, even if politically and socially we accept them.