The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: emancipate yourself from mental slavery*

(See in situ)

emancipate yourself from mental slavery*

For the sole purpose of returning a sliver of happiness for your effort here, I'll tell you that I have an extensive background in academic pursuit of both moral philosophy and drug use. I instinctively and quickly don my best hat of skepticism when entering such a read. From the top I was thrust into thoughts of, "Oh, he's gonna lose me here. I just know it!" My first thought as such was triggered at "Purpose includes...". Lo and behold, as sloppy as it was, you didn't drop me there. Sure, all the way through I found sloppiness, but the sloppiness ended up in general to be a boon in following your logic, although as critic I'll point out two items that distract and are unneeded [erroneous or 'spot on' is inconsequential]. Your logic presents a generally negative argument toward drugs as a whole. Minimal comparisons are rhetorically beneficial at minimal points supporting a return to your main thrust in general argument, but this comparison goes too far and is unnecessary...

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

A result of such unnecessary overstepping is that I bet you lost half of your readers right there at that moment.

The other problematic point I'd like to mention is in your presentation of self-awareness...

"2. Lack of self-awareness."

My contention is with your use of the word "Lack". This term confuses. Especially when you so quickly jump into the issue of paranoia. I can personally make sense of this , but [since you claim at the end of this that you bear some rhetorical intent] my critical mind wants you to define "self-awareness" before specifically claiming a "Lack" thereof. A deeper definition as such isn't really necessary if "Lack" is eliminated. "Skewed" or "distorted" in lieu of "Lack of" may provide a rhetorically less offensive notion, although in general I like where you go with it.

A moral argument provides insight toward personal guidance and nothing more. Your piece sits rather well within such context. I pity your task to reply to detailed contentions that might follow as I scroll down to peruse the comments [I have read none as of yet]. Your general thrust aligns with my own perspective. Of course, I have extensive experience with drug use/abuse, and if that is also the case with you, that may be information worthy of sharing with your audience. I mention that because, if that is true, an argument of broader context could be made that drug use itself may be an important [if not required] factor in reaching such high moral ground. I won't lay that one out but to say, no one is found that hasn't been lost.

*yes, it's an intentionally provocative title ;D

not Marley, and perhaps not equally but oddly apropos...