Assuming for a moment that you are correct (when you say that "given the opportunity that most people behave responsibly when those behavioural controls are relaxed"), why do you think they do so? Are you not saying, essentially, that the more dangerous the situation is, the more cautious people are?
In the face of danger (not risk) people are naturally (though the process of evolution; protecting the chances of our species survival) more inclined to act in manner that is responsible to keep themselves (and also people around them; we are social mammals after all) safe. I am not saying for one instant that dangerous situations (or potentially dangerous) should me made more so... :screwy:... what I am saying is that divorcing people from their natural urges is what makes certain behaviours more dangerous; as it diffuses responsibility. So no I am not arguing that we 'need more danger'... we need more responsibility to be able to act in ways that are beneficial to ourselves and our social group. But I am repeating myself.., I have already said this (albeit it in different ways) many many times on this thread.
Quote from Coyote
Quite simply, the latter is responding to an actual change in the world whilst the former is not. The latter is a relationship with the world, whilst the former is purely about an experience that bares no relation to wider reality.
And what evidence have you based this theory on... because as someone who has actually experienced the affects of drugs; as well as read medical reports on the affects of drugs... I personally think that the above statement is so far from reality that it is almost laughable...
Quote from Coyote
What concerns me is people living on illusions that are not relating to the reality of the wider world around them.
But that is what people do with a wide variety of things... including inter-personal relationships, food, gambling... and a whole range of behaviours. If you take the question of legality out of the picture you can see that on an neuro-chemical level there is no difference between drug taking or being in love.
Quote from Coyote
Which brings me back to the point I raised a while back. What do you think of my idea that drug use (including medical psychoative use) is a strange variation on Stoicism? A Stoic being, for those who dont know, someone who seeks to remake "his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,""(Source). I say "strange" because where the Stoic seeks to do this by bringing his will into line with reality, whilst the drug user seeks to bring their will into line with a fantasy that they hope and wish were true but do not believe it (hence needing to force the issue with a drug.
To be honest Lee I don't think I could argue for or against... you seem to be thinking in a quite dualistic way on this matter; as a result you are totally unwilling to accept that yes for some people your statement may be applicable; for others not. You really do need to stop thinking in such black and white terms on this matter; as well as going away and actually learning about these substances you claim to know so much about. Because as it stands at present I agree with Atomik; you are showing that (on this subject) you are ignorant and prejudiced. And it is this kind of thinking that is stopping our society from dealing with the issues that drug taking poses.