Random Drugs

The Randomness of What You Buy

When people observe that particles move in a certain way, they may call it gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, etc.   Or, they may be completely unable to figure out that force and call it random.  The “randomness” written into the systematic evolution of lightforms plays the part of the ways in which the targeted person who buys things (the “consumer”) is for the game to work too ignorant to know how advertising and media power create product awareness and interest.  Many people, if asked, know what advertising is, but think it only applies to things like beer and cruises, and not to political systems and political actors.  

(Consider here the way that people have brains always designed, in earliest infancy, for using evidence.  I.e., nursing--the difference between getting calories versus not is very significant for every human ever, and if you're alive that means you figured out the value of evidence by being able to tell the difference between getting calories and imagining calories.  Trains no eye nonsense now is a proud faith in matter not mattering, which is quintessentially Christian--anti-matter.  Remember yet again that "christ" means "savior."  This nonsense of liberal White women promoting socialisms and immigration is based around the original contest of evidence v. faith, with the derogation of Legacy Christianity by modern liberals as just part of the trick.  If you disagree, go back in time to early communist Russia and try not to eat because you have faith in God who [Who?] will give you manna.)  

Consider marijuana.  Anti-marijuana legislation in Europe and the U.S. financially benefits landowners in certain foreign climates, while pro-marijuana (“neutral”) legalization financially benefits other landowners, often inside those countries themselves.  For example, if you can invest in your land and turn a profit from what it produces, you approach that investment very differently than if the investment can be wholly seized/destroyed by government paramilitary forces in service of hypothetical morality.  Laws restricting certain products can guide how occur production and distribution.  For example, decades of tobacco, alcohol, and other anti-drug legislation have been used to keep production and use of very low quality, slightly more harmful, cheaper-to-produce pain-relievers economically rewarding in certain ways.  Consider how many millions of people, for how many years, used a tremendous amount of money drinking low quality alcoholic beverages and smoking low quality tobacco in attempts to deal with stress/anxiety.  The billions of 21^st century C.E. dollars thus channeled rewarded producers in a certain way, just as the use of certain strains of mass-produced drugs in the 21^st century C.E. revealed systematic hypocrisy of the 20^th century system and enabled great, foul profits to continue.  

Take These

Think of Christian art.  For more than 1,000 years, artistic endeavor was curbed by making art be focused on Jesus and other matter-avoidance-inclined story characters (you're supposed to believe they were real, like if the ocean shifted once and flooded some city, it can be presented as proof that the Noah's Ark story is real).  E.g. “pro-savior imagery” was required, or artists could spend their entire lives unknown, and they knew it just like today’s people know about what perspectives they must say they have when the boss is observing.  Just like what most college students today believe, the installation of perspective was there for a very long time.  Pro-salvation narratives were pro-salvation arguments, which changed citizens drastically, making an incredibly powerful set of governmental presumptions.  (Consider how good and heroic it is said to be when James Bond kills someone for the queen, and what message that conveys about how British actions during the time of James Bond should be considered.  That kind of arrogance comes at a high price, and if you don't believe it get a hotel in London by the loudspeakers blasting the call to prayer and try to sleep  through it.)  It is a comparatively small thing to have a few years of forcing people to benefit low quality drugs because high quality ones are illegal.  In each case, essentially moral claims were employed to make the economic situation seem proper.  

Just like in Usica, where voters can choose between Republicans and Democrats while receiving the same policy, the system of government that advertises the legality or illegality of various drugs does not substantively change.  Again, like the proverbial mouse in a cage, the “choice” of in which direction to run in the maze is not really about an important thing.  The choice is an illusion.  Thinking you really know the Bible and will be saved from this ugly real world versus thinking you really know critical race theory and are free be free from this ugly real world are the same thing as far as pre-Christian European culture.  Maybe in a thousand years majorities will like Galaxor, the octopus god with laser eyes who everyone knows laid in Africa the eggs from which all people came, and who had to endure the Great Dryness where the Evil Fisherman kept him out of the water for 1,000 years, therefore social justice and give all you earn to pay the water bills for the people over there or else you suck.  Same thing: egalitarianism, African origins, and fake badness.  

Selective Benefit

Just like how Gates etc. got rich off a crappy GUI that local governments never had to actually force people to use--after all, one could choose freely to have the cops close one's business because one never opened the files sent by various governmental agencies, just like huge private wealth was created by forcing millions of taxpayers to fund armies to hold land with drilling rights that could be assigned to certain people, making a bunch of people think excited little boys need certain pills creates wealth.  Certain painkillers and mood-improvement drugs are regulated in some ways, including being made illegal, to boost the profits of producers rich enough to industrially supply a large geographical area.  I.e., if Earl is spending three years dying painfully in his trailer, and takes Drug X once per day to feel better, versus if he is taking Drug Y once per day to feel better, there is no social effect of his choice to take Drug X or Drug Y.  It is, therefore, very ridiculous to pay and equip armies of men to make one choice illegal.  However, if there are 10,000 Earls, that choice matters to manufacturers—if there are 100,000 Earls (and 10 million Eustaces taking the same drug to feel less stressed after a workweek), that choice matters more.  Cute hypotheticals of independent producers are substantially magnified for factions controlling, say, a few hundred square acres and regional distribution networks.  

In either of Earl’s cases, people can feel they are making a moral choice.  The suffering of Earl, and how the drug would relieve it, can make legalization of that drug seem good.  On the other side, the bad habits of people cultivating, using, and/or abusing the illegal drug can make its illegality seem good.  As with Christians and heretics, Tory and Labor we mean Labe-our supporters, Democrats and Republicans, etc., the show of opposition and resistance is important to make people feel they are making a free choice.  

Speech of Jesina

This is the kind of nonsense Ists say!  What Ists don’t see is that legal marijuana has absolutely no adverse health effects.  

People only made up bad words (stoner, pothead, etc.) and thought bad of people who used those things for reasons that random.  Also, licensed twentysomething physicians know way more about long term marijuana usage than unlicensed users of decades, so there need to be pharmacies involved cough money cough.