Oh. Well, I still could not disagree more. Personally I think making substances illegal is ridiculous, and I certainly don't judge the safety or efficacy of drugs based on their legality. I'm a believer of Jeffersonian liberty. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." I think all drugs should be legalized and regulated, you know, take a billion-dollar industry out of the hands of violent criminals and instead use it to pick up the economy a little. This would make drugs safer by getting rid of all of the 'cut', and hard drug abusers can be better educated on the side effects of their drug of choice. Plus instead of spending tax money to punish drug-abusers, maybe we can use the money they used to buy their drugs to actually help them? My morals don't come from the laws of man, I just do what I think is right or, more aptly, what I think is best.
I drink marihuana-infused milk for nootropical purposes--it's medicinal maaaaaaaaaaan. xD For reals though.
"[T]he illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
"I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs. Such a remark applies not only to self-awareness and to intellectual pursuits, but also to perceptions of real people, a vastly enhanced sensitivity to facial expression, intonations, and choice of words which sometimes yields a rapport so close it's as if two people are reading each other's minds."
If Carl Sagan hadn't explained all of my beliefs so concisely I wouldn't quote him so often =P My point is that some things are great, legal or illegal. Arbitrary law=/=truth, but this is probably another debate entirely.
Your comparison isn't valid. Exercise isn't a medicine that is given by prescription only to obese people so it has nothing to do with what I meant.
If exercise plans were kept secret and outlawed by the government, only available with a prescription, it would be the exact same. Now, ofcourse, that doesn't make sense, right? Just because some government officials and judges with no medical background decided that you shouldn't be allowed to put certain things into your body doesn't mean they have a good reason, or that their reasons are based on logic. This is why personal decisions should be made by each individual and not by the government. You may not think the comparison is valid, but it's the exact same as if certain foods were outlawed because they're bad for you.
Yeah, some nootropics have negative effects, like cocaine. But if people want to live fast and die young, I see no logical reason to keep them from it. Personally I try to make informed, healthy decisions--but some people don't /want/ to live to be 60.
Again, in my opinion you should just live your life and let other people live theirs. Do the best that you can, finding excuses in others for why you didn't do as good as you 'could have' is counter-productive to progress.
"That's totally what I meant, except not directed to the same person. People who don't have a disease shouldn't take medicines that are aimed at people who are ill, just because they want to get a raise/have the best grades of the class."
It's like you're assuming specific drugs exist for a singular purpose--to treat a certain illness. But that is simply not the case. Drugs are. What we do with them decides their purpose, they have no objective duty. If something makes you do better and you don't mind dealing with the side-effects... well, I don't know what else to say. Why does someone else get to decide what we're allowed to do with our bodies? You can smoke cigarettes, one of the biggest killers in the world, but not marijuana... because it's bad for you? lolwuuut
I didn't say you deserve to feel bad for not wanting to be limited by a disease. Not at all. What I said was that you should feel bad for comparing yourself to others. Do as good as you can--that's all you can do. Blaming other people--even if they're straight-up cheating--is not going to help you.
I agree with Stijn about the disabled girl. It sounds like she isn't mentally handicapped, so giving her a time extension is kind of unfair. A more fair alternative, in my opinion, would be to have her do the test orally, if possible. If that's not possible, maybe the time extension is the best way to go about it, I certainly wouldn't complain. If someone who wasn't disabled got a time extension I wouldn't even care. I'd just do what I had to do, complaining is mental capacity wasted.
I don't know how you came up with the assumption that disabled people failing makes me feel great. Nootropics make me feel grate. You can't fairly claim that nootropics are responsible for you--or anyone else--failing, is all I'm saying. Remember, it's medicine maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.
Sorry about that crass post last time. I always do that, I type up replies when I'm all tired and frustrated and post them without re-reading them, then when I read them the next day I realize how pissy it makes me sound. It's not that I disagree with any of the things I've said, I'm just really genitalsy about it sometimes. This one's probably just as bad, I dunno. It's too long to re-read now so sorry in advance xD
Do you really think it's your job(or the government's) to stop someone from intaking harmful substances? Coronary heart disease kills a hell of a lot more people than prescription drugs, you better stop people from eating hydrogenated oils next. Because thinking for yourself is danjrus.
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Robert H. Jackson(1950)
Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.