People who are not smart or imaginative enough to go to parties and events sober deserve to get whatever happens?

The logic behind this statement is classic. It blames the victim for the mishap.

Blaming the victim does not solve the problem. In this case the people who took the drugs were the victims while the problem is their desire to enhance their experience by using illiegal mind-alterring substances. A more helpful attitude would be to point people to healthier lifestyle choices.

Blaming the victim is used often. People on welfare or the poor in general are often blamed for their own circumstances when those are usually out of their control.

At its worst, blaming the victim is hurtful and vindictive. I’ve seen it used when mentioning victims of the Holocaust, such as “why weren’t they smart enough to leave before the trouble started?”

I believe it’s more helpful to look closer at our attitudes about control, self-control, and self-determination. We often think, it seems, that self-will can solve everything. It can’t.

They were stupid enough to take the drugs. Sure, they couldn’t help themselves while they were fucked up, but they had plenty of control beforehand. They didn’t have to take any drugs, but they chose to. So yes, they did deserve it. Maybe they might learn a lesson.

@hawaii_jake ” In this case the people who took the drugs were the victims while the problem is their desire to enhance their experience by using illiegal mind-alterring substances.” To be a victim is to have something done to you that you could not help or control. It was done upon you by another person seeking to gain off you or leave you as a disadvantage. Those who weaken their own defenses did so themselves. If I purchased a 370hp sports car and smeared Vasaline over the windshield then tried to race a Corvette and smashed the car on a tree I can’t blame the Vette owner because they chose to accept the invitation to race. I would have been the one to leave my own self at a disadvantage.

” People on welfare or the poor in general are often blamed for their own circumstances when those are usually out of their control.” Unless they got on welfare because someone stole their money or cheated them out of it, they were not victims even if unfavorable circumstances drained their money. Some of them, though, due to poor choices cause themselves to be poor or homeless. Not everyone poor is poor because something bad happened to take the chance of wealth away anymore than the rich got there simply because they were lucky or cheated their way to wealth.

”I’ve seen it used when mentioning victims of the Holocaust, such as “why weren’t they smart enough to leave before the trouble started?” There are pretty smart people sitting in prisons here in the US, simply having intelligence don’t equal ability to flee. I am sure most of those who seen the signs of trouble and had a way out did so. I also believe there were some who seen what was coming but has no physical way to make the escape they wanted to. But I never heard say “let us go pic nic at Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz II-Birkenau, or Auschwitz what is the worse than can happen?” You don’t chum the water then go swimming then get pissed after you lose a big chunk of flesh to a shark.

Yes, they took the drugs, but that wasn’t the expected outcome. If you have ever taken the drug, you would know that going to a rave is not the same sober, and neither is sex.

People are going to do drugs, we get bored, found an unsavory outlet to have fun or find a rush etc. Even you (yes you OP) have a vice so give us a break.

There are so many assumptions made in your question and accompanying statements that I don’t really find it possible to give a sensible answer without addressing these things first.

Why do you assume that people who drink or use drugs are not ”smart or imaginative enough”?

Why do you assume that they ”can’t” go to events without taking drugs or drinking?

Why do you assume that they ”need” to be “high or drunk”?

And finally, why do they ”deserve” it?

To me, these statements read like personal judgements, but in case I’m wrong, I’d like to ask you to share the evidence on which these claims are being made.

These statements aside, I am of the belief that there is an inherent risk associated with the consumption of any substance, or participation in any activity. If you choose to take a road trip one day and are killed in an automobile accident, would it be fair, or even helpful, for me to say that you “deserve” this because you know the inherent risks associated with that activity, and that you are aren’t “smart or imaginative” enough to choose a less risky activity? Of course this isn’t exactly the same, but I think it’s equally (or more) as fair a comparison as your sea captain/iceberg scenario.

Human decision making processes tend to involve the weighing up of costs and benefits associated with any given behaviour, and this is much the same for choosing to ingest psychoactive substances. I cannot speak for the perspective given by your mainstream media in the USA, but it’s generally understood by informed people in academic circles that here in the UK, drug harms, particularly relating to certain well-known “party” drugs are undoubtedly exaggerated and disorted by the media, and uncritical consumers of this information go on to be misinformed. For example, in the UK, ecstasy (MDMA) is widely considered to be a highly dangerous party drug, of which the media and the general population have high awareness. In reality, there are as few as 12–15 deaths per year in the UK associated with the use of ecstasy, despite there being a (conseratively) estimated 500,000 people who take this drug regularly (at least once a week) ( source ).

If you’re interested in learning more about drug harms then I suggest you read this highly cited peer-reviewed paper by David Nutt from the Lancet. It contains some very interesting information about the relative harms (social, physical and dependence) of drugs, and their associated classifications in the UK. You can see that degree of legality and degree of harm are alarmingly unrelated in some cases.

Your question reminds me of an alcoholic that gets behind the wheel and kills innocent people. i have been in court so many times, when people attempt to use drugs and alcohol as a defense for their actions. that does not work in my state.

Same applies to some people that go to parties. in advance, they know, or should have known, that illegal drugs and alcohol would be served. whether its good or bad drugs or alcohol is a gamble they take. some live through it, others do not.

I respect my body too much to be caught in this type of gambling situation. if i am going to gamble on something, i will go to a casino and have fun with a slot machine. it does not serve bad drugs or alcohol, only no wins for that day. at least, i can walk to my car and drive home safely.

I can remember standing in line for a ticket to a David Bowie concert years ago. when I got to the concert, I can clearly remember seeing a girl who was so wasted that she couldn’t negotiate the seats. Security came and took her purse and then it took two of them to finally carry her away. I remember thinking what a drag it was that she wasn’t going to get to see the concert, then I thought; “What the hell, even if she had stayed she wouldn’t remember any of it.” Stupid girl.
Stuff like that happened a lot where I could see. I remember a guy throwing up all over the place before another concert, then staggering off to go sleep somewhere, so he missed the whole thing. I thought that he really wasted his money and time.
But when I was in college years ago, I went to see The Wall with a girlfriend and we dropped acid about an hour before going in. It was awesome.
So I try not to judge.

Unless someone forced them to indulge, it was entirely their own fault.

It is not their fault however if someone else took advantage and committed a crime against them.

I think it’s high time that we humans started taking responsibility for our own actions and so I have little sympathy in situations like this one. Whilst I agree with you, @hawaii_jake that there needs to be more education in place to help people choose a healthier lifestyle etc in order to guide people into taking more responsibility for themselves, I can’t stand this whole “victim” outlook we seem to have nowadays. The victims are the people that have their drinks spiked not the ones that choose to take drugs. Now, having said that, I couldn’t care less what other people decide to put in their bodies providing that a) no one else is harmed and b) they don’t pull the victim card when something goes wrong.

Blame the victim or not, I partly blame lack of education. Adults outright lied to us about drugs when I was a kid, pretending a can of beer is a slippery slope to junkiedom and that marijuana is dangerous and addictive. Of course, that’s all fine and dandy for the people the lies convince, but for those of us who, uh, think for ourselves, we quickly found that many of the lies spread by the likes of DARE and MADD were simply untrue.

That said, there are real problems with drugs and our society’s failure to address drugs honestly creates a major credibility problem. Not least of all, I think many jackasses really do equate crack and hallucinogenic pills with marijuana and beer (the latter two are roughly equally “harmful”).

There’s simply a matter of role modeling too. Kids who first experience drugs when they’re 12–21 often don’t have models to follow, beyond the drooling Beavis who offered the drugs in the first place. Somebody more experienced could credibly tell them that alcohol is okay or even healthy in moderate doses and marijuana is…well, usually just stupid, but pretty harmless.

What is a bad drug? Is it your general, judgemental about all drugs or are you speaking about heroin being cut with poisions and kitchen ecstasy?

“Bad drugs” are another reason drugs should be legalized and regulated.

Why is your response to hearing of this situation to blame the people who were hurt? I’m not saying they did or didn’t “deserve what they got,” I just wonder why you even ask the question. What difference does it make to you whether they “deserved” it or not? This is an ugly question, in my opinion. The issue is complicated, and ultimately the blame spreads all over – I think your position is simplistic, and just plain mean-spirited.

No, sorry I don’t think they deserved what they got. I think their high risk behavior was ill conceived but I don’t believe they had it coming. You ever done something risky and had it jump up and bite you in the butt? Maybe one too many beers on the boat? Anything? If not, you are the first person I’ve ever come across who hasn’t made a mistake similar to the one these people made.

It’s funny how his/her name is ‘Hypocrisy Central…...

@Blackberry ”If you have ever taken the drug, you would know that going to a rave is not the same sober, and neither is sex.” Hey you, holla! Well it would be logic. I have never been attacked by a sleuth of bears but I know it is not better than avoiding them. Rational thinking……it does work sometimes……..

”Even you (yes you OP) have a vice so give us a break.” But whatever vice I may have I know what goes in my mouth and if something is wrong with it I know who to sue. And if any of my vices involve ingesting something that something is not going to leave me 5 sheets to the wind so that someone can rob me blind right under my nose or bitch slap me and me not having the faculties to defend myself because I view them as a blue genie or polka dot clown or something.

@reverie ”Why do you assume that people who drink or use drugs are not ”smart or imaginative enough”?” Why do you believe they need drugs to think better or be more imaginative? If drugs were that great at that why not give them to pilot of commercial and fighter jets?

”Why do you assume that they ”can’t” go to events without taking drugs or drinking?” Show me 100 ravs and I bet my donuts to anyone dollars that around 92 will be slosh fest and not dry (alcohol free), and the ones sans alcohol will be near empty unless some church threw it. If you know of ravs where alcohol is not served I am all ears.

”Why do you assume that they ”need” to be “high or drunk”?” Well why would someone do something it diminish their abilities willingly? Almost like a sprinter just deciding she/he can run better in wooden shoes………good lick with that.

”And finally, why do they ”deserve” it?” )”If you choose to take a road trip one day and are killed in an automobile accident, would it be fair, or even helpful, for me to say that you “deserve” this because you know the inherent risks associated with that activity, and that you are aren’t “smart or imaginative” enough to choose a less risky activity?”_ If I got behind the wheel of a 400hp car with bald tires and Vasaline smeared over the wind shield then go ripping through a winding valley road at double the posted speed limit and I crash down a ravine it would not be my fault? Then who’s fault is it? Then I know I can go out and do that next week, I just have to ake sure I survive then I can sue who was at fault.

”I’d like to ask you to share the evidence on which these claims are being made.” Show me the evidence that being stoned on drugs or drunk is better than the natural mind you were born with and makes it better foe enjoyment of events?

@tinyfaery ”What is a bad drug?” A bad drug is one with no redeeming medical use, but it is not the drug that is in question but the reason for its use or abuse.

@nicobanks ”I just wonder why you even ask the question. What difference does it make to you whether they “deserved” it or not?” It should not happen to them and no one deserve to be victimized but how can one claim being a victim if they stand in a hay barn trying to flick lighted matches into a coffee can and when the barn burns down ask why did it happen to me as if it was some random accident?

@Blackberry ”its funny how his/her name is ‘Hypocrisy Central…...” It is he actually and it would be hypocritical not to make them own up to their own behavior. If some dare devil tried to jump buses on a motorcycle, crashed and got seriously injured I am suppose to let him blame the maker of the motorcycle or the person who constructed the ramp?”

@Hypocrisy_Central

I’m fairly sure you haven’t really taken in what I have said in my post, since you seem to have made a number of inferences from what I have written that are incorrect. In any case, please see my response below.

“Why do you assume that people who drink or use drugs are not ”smart or imaginative enough”?” Why do you believe they need drugs to think better or be more imaginative? If drugs were that great at that why not give them to pilot of commercial and fighter jets?

I haven’t stated anywhere in my post that people “need drugs to think better or be more imaginative”. I’ve simply disagreed with your assumption that people who use drugs “need” to because they are not “smart or imaginative enough”. Whether or not particular drugs can enhance particular abilities in individuals (e.g., enhancing the creativity of musicians when composing music) is another issue entirely, and not one that I have made reference to anywhere in my post.

Regarding your commercial/fighter pilot remark, I’m fairly sure that it goes without saying that just because something is “great” for some people in some situations does not mean that something is universally “great” across the board, in all situations. I find reading a highly enjoyable and intellectually beneficial activity, when I am sat in a peaceful chair in my living room. Reading would not be a great activity for me to be doing at the wheel of a car. This comparison is about as absurd as your comparison to pilots.

”Why do you assume that they ”can’t” go to events without taking drugs or drinking?” Show me 100 ravs and I bet my donuts to anyone dollars that around 92 will be slosh fest and not dry (alcohol free), and the ones sans alcohol will be near empty unless some church threw it. If you know of ravs where alcohol is not served I am all ears.

Again, you are making some incorrect assumptions here. The opposite of the statement “people can’t go to events without taking drugs” (what you said) is not “there are lots of ravs [sic] where no-one takes drugs or gets drunk” (which is not what I said, but what you seem to assume that I mean). As I highlighted with the formatting of my initial response to you, I was taking issue with your use of the word “can’t”; that is, your implying that people “can’t” attend particular functions without ingesting particular substances. I think this is incorrect, as I believe people choose to ingest these substances. It is fallacious to infer that because you do not find many “dry” raves where people do not drink or take drugs, that those people “can’t” attend such events without ingesting the aforementioned substances.

”Why do you assume that they ”need” to be “high or drunk”?” Well why would someone do something it diminish their abilities willingly? Almost like a sprinter just deciding she/he can run better in wooden shoes………good lick with that.

It appears you are unable to empathise with people that use drugs for recreational purposes. Whilst you may be unable to empathise in this instance, you are making a furher assumption here. As you cannot understand or empathise with someone else’s motivations for doing what you pereceive to be a negative or destructive act, you are assuming that they must be performing that behaviour because of some sort of “need” or compulsion. Surely you can see the logical fallacy here?

There are many things that I see people do every day, things that I wouldn’t do myself, such as someone eating large quantities of deep-fried fast food, or spending every night in front of the TV. I wouldn’t perform these behaviours myself, because when I weigh up the costs and benefits, I see them as more negative than positive. However, I think it would be absurd for me to assume that because I view those behaviours as negative or destructive, that those individuals who perform those behaviours do so because they “need” to, or in your words, because I think “why would someone do something to [harm themselves] willingly?”. Clearly, those people have their own motivations, some of which will be more private and some will be more obvious, and to chalk those behaviours up to “need” because I fail to understand them myself would be utterly ridiculous.

”And finally, why do they ”deserve” it?” )”If you choose to take a road trip one day and are killed in an automobile accident, would it be fair, or even helpful, for me to say that you “deserve” this because you know the inherent risks associated with that activity, and that you are aren’t “smart or imaginative” enough to choose a less risky activity?”_ If I got behind the wheel of a 400hp car with bald tires and Vasaline smeared over the wind shield then go ripping through a winding valley road at double the posted speed limit and I crash down a ravine it would not be my fault? Then who’s fault is it? Then I know I can go out and do that next week, I just have to ake sure I survive then I can sue who was at fault.

You are making an inappropriate analogy. Many people take drugs, and do not experience harmful consequences (see the article from Psychopharmacology that I cited above, where I noted that out of the 500,000 people that take ecstasy at least once a week in the UK, there are 12–15 ecsasy-related deaths per year). You can see here that this death risk is very small, and therefore, I can appreciate that some people that choose to take this small risk to achieve an experience that they find pleasurable or enjoyable in some way.

Quite clearly, this is not the same as deliberately sabotaging the safety of your vehicle and driving in a deliberately dangerous way. Any informed person able to reason in a logical manner would appreciate that there is far more risk involved in this activity, and thus the analogy is not appropriate.

As I said in my original post, taking risks is an inherent part of daily life, from activities where there is relatively little risk (e.g., eating food from a restaurant where there’s a tiny possibility of food poisoning, crossing a quiet street), to activities where there is larger risk (e.g., driving anywhere, having medical surgery). To make the judgment that anyone knowingly performing a behaviour that involves any degree of risk “deserves” what they get is not really relevant or helpful, since almost every action we perform or allow to be performed on us involves risk.

”I’d like to ask you to share the evidence on which these claims are being made.” Show me the evidence that being stoned on drugs or drunk is better than the natural mind you were born with and makes it better foe enjoyment of events?

I haven’t said anywhere that I think “being stoned on drugs or drunk is better than the natural mind you were born with and makes it better foe [sic] enjoyment of events”. I have made no value judgements whatsoever about drugs or alcohol, merely defended those who use them against your allegations that they “need” them, that they “can’t” function without them and that they aren’t “smart or imaginative” people.

With regards to the possible positive consequences of psychoactive substances, this is another issue entirely (as I touched upon in my second paragraph).

Furthermore, it’s fairly poor form in a debate to answer a question with a question, so I’d still like you to show me the evidence for the claims that you make.

I’m very interested in this topic, but I am finding myself distracted from the issue at hand because you seem to be making a number of unwarranted inferences and assumptions. I would really appreciate it if you took the time to really take in what people are saying, because then we could talk about the subject itself, rather than have a discussion where we are just clearing up mistakes and misunderstandings. Furthermore, if you don’t have evidence for your claims, why not just say so? Opinions are perfectly valid, whether or not you have something concrete to back them up with. I don’t know about other people, but I think it would be pretty boring if we only developed views that were based on a strong evidence base. On the other hand, when you make strong claims like you have been making, implying that there is some sort of evidence base for your beliefs, it’s pretty poor form to ignore concrete contradictory evidence, like I have presented, without showing me any of your own concrete evidence that your views are based on. Otherwise, it’s not really a very constructive debate, is it?

@reverie “_“Why do you assume that people who drink or use drugs are not smart or imaginative enough?”_* I can and will assume that because if they were inagined enough they would not need to take things that impede with the normal function and reasoning capacity of the brain. If yoiu know the answers to the test you don’t cheat for the fun of it and risk invalidating your whole test at would not be wise. “I haven’t stated anywhere in my post that people “need drugs to think better or be more imaginative”. I’ve simply disagreed with your assumption that people who use drugs “need” to because they are not “smart or imaginative enough”.” What do they need to take drugs for if they were smart and imaginative enough, is there a benefit in thereI am missing?

“I’m fairly sure that it goes without saying that just because something is “great” for some people in some situations does not mean that something is universally “great” across the board, in all situations. I find reading a highly enjoyable and intellectually beneficial activity, when I am sat in a peaceful chair in my living room. Reading would not be a great activity for me to be doing at the wheel of a car.” I would agree reading a book while sailing a yacht, piloting a plane, driving a car, operating heavy equipment etc. would not be smart. The best place for one to get hammered if that is what they want to do, is at home locked behind their door. Then they can tap their kegger, snort their line off the mirror, drop that tub of acid etc, fire up their personal mirror ball, flop on the sofa and stare at the ceiling giggling their heads off. Then the worse they might run into is the coffee table. They will only puke on thier own carpet hope they have slippers on, they are locked behind their door so no one is going to lift their jewelry, wallet and such, and no one will be reaching under their skirt mining the goodies. There IS a place for that, in their house.

“Many people take drugs, and do not experience harmful consequences (see the article from Psychopharmacology that I cited above, where I noted that out of the 500,000 people that take ecstasy at least once a week in the UK, there are 12–15 ecsasy-related deaths per year). You can see here that this death risk is very small, and therefore, I can appreciate that some people that choose to take this small risk to achieve an experience that they find pleasurable or enjoyable in some way.” Most drugs can be taken with no damaging side effects if taken once, or even if taken regularly over time in the right dose. Most all medication has some warnings off effects when used normal over time or if abused. One can eat a donuts 3 times a week and not to much to themselves in the negative, but stuffing a dozen or more down a day….then that is something else. When you get to the point you are wasted and can’t even think or stand that is something else. The last phrase made if they were imagines or had the capacity to do such, why would they need drugs? If you have a computer program that works and works correctly why instal software that will slow it down and confuse the commands so when you want it to print it will start running a folder search, and when you want to close programs it goes to defrag?

I am all ears, how is clouding your mental capacity chemically makes the event better when often you won’t remember half ot it? If they were going to takw one quart pill etc or less, I guess they won’t really need it then.

@Hypocrisy_Central how is clouding your mental capacity chemically makes the event better when often you won’t remember half ot it?

I can answer that question.

Sometimes you run into some blowhole who goes out of his way to rain on your parade and if you are under the influence it’s much easier to ignore these party poopers. You said it yourself, “often you won’t remember half ot it” the part you tend to remember was the fun part.

@Hypocrisy_Central “How can one [...] stand in a hay barn trying to flick lighted matches into a coffee can and when the barn burns down ask why did it happen to me as if it was some random accident?” Okay, but who’s doing that? You never said these kids are asking why this happened to them like the answer isn’t obvious, you just said they got messed up.

@Hypocrisy_Central

At the end of my most recent post to you, I requested that you be a little more sporting in your debating style, making sure to respond to all questions that are raised, and attending to all of the information that is given to you. I did you the courtesy of spending considerable time composing a detailed response to your message, and I find it tiresome that the same level of care was not applied in your response to me. Quite frankly, because I perceive that I am spending a lot of time repeating myself, highlighting your misunderstandings, assumptions, and the logical fallacies of your arguments, this has ceased to become enjoyable or intellectually stimuliating for me; I feel that I’m not able to focus on properly debating the topic that I am interested in.

I’m going to bow out of this now, but I’d like to share a few final points that come to me from reading your final message, and your posts in general in this discussion.

1. To explain away a behaviour in another person that you don’t understand with justifications of compulsion, need, or stupidity, is, at best, a logically weak stance, and at worst, woefully ignorant and narrow-minded. There are some things that are much harder to make sense of than others, but empathy is such a valuable tool in making sense of the world, and without it, life would be pretty frustrating and dark.

2. Opinions are highly valuable things, that can be developed as a result of creative thinking, intellectual self-focus, and of course, life experience. I whole-heartedly welcome the opinions of others and think the world would be a terribly dull place if everyone had the same beliefs. However, if you value rigour when it comes to reasoning, your opinions need to be flexible, and need to be able to be modified in the face of objective evidence. This helps if you know where your own opinions and beliefs come from, what they were based on, and what caused them to develop.

3. Applying black and white thinking to the behaviour of human beings is rarely helpful. Decisions are not made in vacuums, and they are very rarely dichotomous. Costs, benefits and varying degrees of risk are associated with all behaviours that we peform, and crucially, the assessment of these factors is made by the individual performing the behaviour. This is where empathy, as I mentioned earlier, is really crucial.

@reverie ”To explain away a behaviour [sic] in another person that you don’t understand with justifications of compulsion, need, or stupidity, is, at best, a logically weak stance, and at worst, woefully ignorant and narrow-minded.” I could take the same stance by those who try to rationalize abusing drugs to enhance an event or experience making it better than if they attended sober, but I didn’t.

¬*”Quite frankly, because I perceive that I am spending a lot of time repeating myself, highlighting your misunderstandings, assumptions, and the logical fallacies of your arguments, this has ceased to become enjoyable or intellectually stimuliating [sic] for me; I feel that I’m not able to focus on properly debating the topic that I am interested in.”* First off how would you know I spent so little time looking over what you responded with? Because I did spend time looking them over. Checked out your sources. I am waiting to hear the logic of how you can take something that work properly and functions correctly can be made better when the capacity of it is diminished by chemicals or other mean?

”I whole-heartedly welcome the opinions of others and think the world would be a terribly dull place if everyone had the same beliefs.” Yes it would be. However, no matter what one believes if the activity is dangerous or highly risky it will remain so. There are other Christians who feel taking poisonous snakes in hand and dancing about with them while praising God is safe, that they are protected by God against the bike of the snake or the poison should they be bit. Maybe if I had more faith I could do that and survive it. My thought is God or not, that is risky behavior, should someone do that and get bit, they have just themselves to blame, same if someone goes to an event and take away their “compass” and reasoning with any chemical.

”This helps if you know where your own opinions and beliefs come from, what they were based on, and what caused them to develop.” I know where mine come from; logic. It is logical to believe if I chum the water before I dive in with my underwater camera sharks will show up. It is logical if I try to climb a granite rock wall without a safety line I could fall to my death. Logically O know taking anything that will leave me unable to think fully on my own will open me up to being victimized by others or fall pray to some unfavorable occurrence.

Go to sleep on this; at Trick or Treat every year tons of candy get tossed out because the wrapper or container it came in was compromised; why is that? Because no one knows there it has been. You know it came from the factory and is now on your kitchen table but the history of it or what happened to it in between while the wrapper was compromised there is no clue, and because no one knows it gets tossed out. Why would I use less diligence just because some dude in the restroom offers to sale me a pill for a really fantastic trip? If I am already 3 sheets to the wind I might not be able to figure out if it was a hunk of marble shaped like a pill, aspirin, GHB, and maybe rat poison? With out a reason why I or anyone else should use less dilligence at a rav than for Halloween candy there s nothing more I can say.

@Hypocrisy_Central GA for the last paragraph about Halloween sweets. It’s very true.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction: The choice isn’t between being Sober and Responsible versus Stoned and Wasteful.

One can be quite responsible getting high, so long as they have total fun, don’t hurt their body, and don’t act like selfish jerks. And yes, it is easily possible to achieve that.

And some forms of music attract better minded people than other forms

And also: People who are rude while high on drugs or alcohol or sobriety… have rude souls, regardless of drugs or alcohol or sobriety. It’s not the substance that is the main poison… it is the rude human being.

You did point this out in a way. You mentioned people who take so many drugs that they have no idea who or where they are. Well in that case, I guess you’re right.

But even when I’m sober, I’m glad there’s people tripping on LSD and other things at fun events. Their shamanic high spreads through the ether and uplifts the entire audience.

The injuries at the rave you mentioned were due to stampeding, which is a combination of bad concert planning, and stupid panicky humans. It probably had very little to do with drugs.

People die in religious stampedes every year, and nobody there is high.

There are responsible drug users and irresponsible ones.

The irresponsible ones deserve what they get, like you mentioned. But the responsible ones should be thanked, protected, and loved.

@Kraigmo ” The choice isn’t between being Sober and Responsible versus Stoned and Wasteful.” Why would not the choice be between those? I have been in places not just ravs or parties where people have been so drunk or high off something they could have been made merchandise by anyone. Had they been mugged or worse they would have had a hard time pointing out who if they even remembered.

” People who are rude while high on drugs or alcohol or sobriety… have rude souls, regardless of drugs or alcohol or sobriety.” I would agree, rude people are that even if they were sober. However I do believe border line rude or Boorish people can cross that void easier when no longer sober their true self comes out when chemicals loosen their guard.

”The injuries at the rave you mentioned were due to stampeding, which is a combination of bad concert planning, and stupid panicky humans. It probably had very little to do with drugs.” It was due to a bad batch of E that was being sold their or some E intentionally spiked to do harm. Last I checked no one got arrested for it even though one or more of the victims dies. You are buying stuff from people you don’t know and trusting it is what they say it is; but how do you really know? Unless you are going to try to pack in all your own goodies it is stupid to pop something in your mouth you purchased from a stranger in the restroom, or next to t-shirt vendor. You would not pop Trick or treat candy in your mouth not knowing where it came from, why do it for a high? When was the last time you ate unwrapped Trick or Treat candy not caring where it has been or who it came from?

” But the responsible ones should be thanked, protected, and loved.” To me that is at home, in your own space you can control with stuff you got from a reliable source, and the Doors locked that way can’t no one roll you when you are most unable to realize or defend against it.

I think part of the experience of fun for these people is in the letting go of fear and inhibition, they may feel imprisoned in their every day sober lives, for what ever reason, and this is how they let go. I feel that this is a condition present as a result of the pressures individuals perceived being put on them by society and not necessarily a condition the individuals adopted consciously.