Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can epicureanism/psychedelics be reasonable?

Rate this topic


James Bond
 Share

Recommended Posts

James T. Baker's book "Ayn Rand" makes the following point: "Ayn Rand assumes that all men want to work. She doesn't account for those who don't have a passion or aren't interested in finding one" (paraphrase). Thoughts?

One question I've been pondering lately whether or not psychedelic "exploration" is reality evading or not. You could make the case that it is humanistic/fine, assuming it's 'exploring' and not 'being addicted to crack'. On the other hand..you could say it is anti-reason/reality. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James T. Baker's book "Ayn Rand" makes the following point: "Ayn Rand assumes that all men want to work. She doesn't account for those who don't have a passion or aren't interested in finding one" (paraphrase). Thoughts?

I have only read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Both books are full of people "who don't have a passion or aren't interested in finding one". So whatever made Baker (whoever that is) utter such nonsense it was clearly not a rational thought about Rand's work.

One question I've been pondering lately whether or not psychedelic "exploration" is reality evading or not. You could make the case that it is humanistic/fine, assuming it's 'exploring' and not 'being addicted to crack'. On the other hand..you could say it is anti-reason/reality. Thoughts?

I think you can use drugs for recreational purposes. However a psychedelic "experience" is some state of mind that is not accessible to your rational faculty. I guess it's the purpose that makes the difference. If your purpose is this state of irrationality then it's probably bad. But if your purpose is a newly refreshed clear mind after the drug wears off, then you probably use it for recreational purposes which would be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She doesn't make any assumptions that all men want to work. If their life is their highest value and they want to live then Objectivism is for those people. Those people also realize that setting goals, chasing passions and productive work are keys to living.

Those who don't have passions and aren't interested in finding one don't have lives. Using psychedelic drugs is another way to evade reality, just a chemical evasion rather than mental blankout. But the choice to evade is in the choice to use these drugs, which one would usually know beforehand.

Maybe if one was a pharmacist, he could justify taking the drug (once, and not if the drug is known to cause immediate addiction) to see what the effects are in order to improve his ability in the profession. Depends on the context of each person who uses some type of drug, I suppose. But in general, I would think that yes, using psychedelic drugs (or any drug that changes or hinders rationality) is immoral.

As well, if I want a refreshed, clear mind, I go to sleep. After I've used any recreational drug (alcohol, marijuana), my brain is never clear or refreshed until a day or so after (depends on how much was ingested obviously). Magnitude and range of effects is different between each person, but I really can't imagine people take recreational drugs to feel refreshed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intent determines everything when it comes to drug use. A 1969 hippie taking LSD multiple times a week (or day) for the purpose of evading reality is acting immorally. A couple using MDMA in a clinical setting in the 1980's under the care and instruction of a psychologist to work on some mental issues would certainly be acting morally. The middle ground gets a little more complicated yet still depends on intent and psychology. I know of people who have used psychedelic drugs once every few years with the intent of self therapy and introspection. Whether or not that works is a matter of science, science which cannot be advanced because of insane drug laws, but I don't see anything immoral about that sort of use. Really though, purely psychedelic drugs are poor choices for recreational use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts. What if in the future, technology provides a recreational escape from reality by providing a hologram like thing..do you think that would be immoral? Let's say you pay $500 bucks and get to spend half an hour at a beach in Costa Rica. (Think star trek/the Matrix). In other words, is there something intrinsically good about this reality? Should we all unplug from the Matrix?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts. What if in the future, technology provides a recreational escape from reality by providing a hologram like thing..do you think that would be immoral? Let's say you pay $500 bucks and get to spend half an hour at a beach in Costa Rica. (Think star trek/the Matrix). In other words, is there something intrinsically good about this reality? Should we all unplug from the Matrix?
Watching Star Trek or The Matrix is not immoral, even though it is an "escape from reality" in the same sense. At least for most of us, actually being at a beach in Costa Rica would be an "escape from reality". The crucial difference between the stoner and the vacationer is that the vacationer is not evading reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Star Trek or The Matrix is not immoral, even though it is an "escape from reality" in the same sense. At least for most of us, actually being at a beach in Costa Rica would be an "escape from reality". The crucial difference between the stoner and the vacationer is that the vacationer is not evading reality.

I think he was referencing the two in regard to virtual reality, i.e., the Holodeck on Star Trek or actually being plugged into "the Matrix" and "virtually" lounging on a beach. Essentially he was asking if it is moral to "escape" into a virtual universe. That point aside, I think what you said is correct. If one where to do it occasionally as a mini-vacation or leisure it would be similar to reading or watching a movie/television program. It would only be immoral if one did it often as a means to evade reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Star Trek or The Matrix is not immoral, even though it is an "escape from reality" in the same sense. At least for most of us, actually being at a beach in Costa Rica would be an "escape from reality". The crucial difference between the stoner and the vacationer is that the vacationer is not evading reality.

I mean actually being in a virtual reality version of a beach, not a vacation. Is this reality intrinsically good? If we could virtually create another that was better than this one..would it be wrong to live in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean actually being in a virtual reality version of a beach, not a vacation. Is this reality intrinsically good? If we could virtually create another that was better than this one..would it be wrong to live in it?
I understood that. I'm saying that it isn't different from being on vacation or watching a movie. It's a nifty hi-tech form of a vacation -- cheaper, faster, no jet lag.

I object to the idea of "this reality" as opposed to "that reality" -- reality is reality. Maybe you mean "this part of reality" versus "that part of reality", but a holodeck will in fact be real, if it exists. That does not mean that the visual images that you see will be "the actual thing", but neither are they in a movie. Whether or not that aspect of reality is good for you or not depends on the facts, for example are you deathly afraid of beaches (in which case the Costa Rica beach scene would be bad)? The fact that it isn't a real beach only becomes relevant if you are actually evading reality, i.e. you have tricked yourself into believing that this is a real beach. Or, if you are using this holodeck paradise to avoid facing the horrifying reality of your own miserable, second-hand existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this reality intrinsically good?

Nothing is intrinsically good. Things can be objectively deemed good if they further the life of a rational man within the context of his own life.

If we could virtually create another that was better than this one..would it be wrong to live in it?

Better in what way? Could you earn a living and provide for your own needs and lifestyle in this virtual world? And if the answer is (somehow?) yes wouldn't that "virtual" world have to be somehow connected to--and therefore a part of--this world?

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me quote Rand from an issue of The OBJECTIVIST. "Happy, self-confident persons do not seek to get stoned"

The "exploratory" drug thing died 37 years ago when we found out that it was just triggering neural synpses and no expanding the mind. The phamutopia that persons seek ended when James Olds disovered teh synaps

I did experiment, but when I finally got the effect I said that I didn't need it because what good there was I could do with my mind anyway and it blunted my sense of time which I hated. That was 1970, not 2009

No; recreational drug use is NOT compatible with Objectivism for the same reason that fideism is not compatible with Objectivism; or Solipsism or Kantianism. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No; recreational drug use is NOT compatible with Objectivism for the same reason that fideism is not compatible with Objectivism; or Solipsism or Kantianism. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Define recreational drug use. What about smokers or social drinkers? Caffeine is a drug that alters someone's perception as well (albeit providing them with more focus). Plenty of the main characters in Rand's novels enjoyed these 3 things. I suppose at the time Rand was writing the ill effects of smoking on someone's health weren't as documented as they are today, however, we're not talking about health effects. We're talking about an altered sensory perception due to recreational drugs.

I'm just curious where you're drawing the line between substances, or their usage. A drug is a drug. Please let me know what the difference is between having a buzz at a social gathering via alcohol and having one via marijuana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define recreational drug use. What about smokers or social drinkers? Caffeine is a drug that alters someone's perception as well (albeit providing them with more focus). Plenty of the main characters in Rand's novels enjoyed these 3 things. I suppose at the time Rand was writing the ill effects of smoking on someone's health weren't as documented as they are today, however, we're not talking about health effects. We're talking about an altered sensory perception due to recreational drugs.

I'm just curious where you're drawing the line between substances, or their usage. A drug is a drug. Please let me know what the difference is between having a buzz at a social gathering via alcohol and having one via marijuana.

The line I'm drawing is one of intent:

Smoking is a contextual act. As a former smoker I can speak to that. There are other factors that enter in where the pharmocological aspect is not a factor. One enjoys the act of smoking and it occurs in certain circumstances. I used to smoke half a pack a day. If I was in a place where we were doing music, such as one of thse great basement jam sessions or the like, or in some other situation where I was deeply engaged. I would often smoke half of that in the course of an afternoon. In c1984 there was released the findings of a study that said there are 3 reasons why persons smoked 1) Positive affect: they liked it 2) Negative affect; it was something to do to counter nervousness 3) Addiction. Now 1984 was far from the Dark Ages. The comes from a report that I heard on WEAN 790 A.M. Providence RI when it was an all-news station.

Social drinking is contextual, Even in Atlas Shrugged, there is a scene of two of the major characters drinking wine. in 1975 at the Psychology Club picnic at Providence College, I consumed 19 cans of beer and several cans of Coke. However, I was stuffing my face and running around actively all day and well into the night so it did not affect me. It was either soaked up by the food or sweat out of me before it kicked in. And yes, I've been plastered so I know when it's kicking in. I read in an issue of Popular Mechanics or Popular Science in 1964, in connection with drunk driving, that it takes the equivalent of 4 drinks for impairment to set in.

Caffeine is really only a stimulant, not a psychedelic. I suspect that if we arranged our lives according th the natural circadian rhythm cycles that this would not be an issue. Circadian rhythms have a high point 4"00 pm and a Low point 4:00 am (statistically) which means we should be going to bed at midnight and rising at 8:00 am. This last is from my Physiological Psych class in 1973

I draw the line at the intent. Is the intent to specifically alter the mind or mood in a non-medical context. i.e. to "get hight", get "stoned" or the like?

The concept of "addiction" has been rendered meaningless over the last few years. Marijuana, Cocaine and Nicotine were listed as non-addictive drugs like asperin 50 years ago. Beyond that. the term has been recently revised (SCAM ALERT!) so that it includes gambling and other things. Now at it inception "Addiction" was defined by a strong, compelling raction to a chemical agent. Now it has been expanted to include non-chemical things like behaviors that are repeated habitually. What's next? This points to a personality characteristic rather than a pharmacological one being the cheif operational factor. However it was the "addictive" nature of drugs that was the stated impetus of the second, and equally destructive as the first, Prohibition. In fact when I studied the matter in US history as a Junior in high school in early 1962, I thought to myself "The ink wasn't even dry on the repeal of Prohibition and they started it again. What kind of dumb are they?" . why do a second time what you know failed in principle the first? And how did they expect it not to help organized crime? I mean; really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me quote Rand from an issue of The OBJECTIVIST. "Happy, self-confident persons do not seek to get stoned"

I don't have it handy, but that seems correct. The article was from the 1960s/70s and I took "get stoned" to mean getting intoxicated to avoid normal reality. Another reason why definitions are important! (if there's disagreement on what "stoned" means)

The "exploratory" drug thing died 37 years ago when we found out that it was just triggering neural synpses and no expanding the mind. The phamutopia that persons seek ended when James Olds disovered teh synaps

I did experiment, but when I finally got the effect I said that I didn't need it because what good there was I could do with my mind anyway and it blunted my sense of time which I hated. That was 1970, not 2009

I never did understand the entire "expand your mind" thing, but then again I'm a reasonable, rational person. Goalless experimentation certainly is irrational and possibly mentally harmful. We do know more about a drug's actions now then back then. But if a substance could be used to help achieve a mental goal, shouldn't we take a second look at it? Damn hippies destroyed many things.

No; recreational drug use is NOT compatible with Objectivism for the same reason that fideism is not compatible with Objectivism; or Solipsism or Kantianism. Why would anyone think otherwise?

I'd say *recreational* drug use has a place, but not habitual or evasion-based drug use... which are too often referred to as "recreational". If it's nice enough outside tomorrow, I plan on using several recreational drugs while fishing in the form of ethanol (beer) and nicotine (stogie). B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we relate recreational drug use with recreational sex. It seems like Rand advocated sex under the pretense that it is to celebrate one´s existence. She did not say that the only justification for sex is reproduction. It seems like drugs, or any powerful stimulation, can be used similarily. The orgasm, afterall, can be considered a drug in a way, and it is completely moral to use it just as a means to celebrate existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we relate recreational drug use with recreational sex. It seems like Rand advocated sex under the pretense that it is to celebrate one´s existence. She did not say that the only justification for sex is reproduction. It seems like drugs, or any powerful stimulation, can be used similarily. The orgasm, afterall, can be considered a drug in a way, and it is completely moral to use it just as a means to celebrate existence.

You're giving away your age :o at one time. "stoned" did mean drunk, and I'm from that time, too

The "mind expansion" idea of drug use came from the nineteenth century, especially with the hallucinogenic qualities of Peyote. One publication of the timefram was Huxley's TJE KEY TO THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION, which was root of the name taken by the Doors. This was prior to the discovery of the neuro-synapse by James Olds. and is echoed in DUNE, but it is long-stnading.

I would thing that recreational drug use is reality-evading, since it's goal is to turn the mentality inward and is therefore egocentric/solopsitic in function and not introspective, and becomes habitual since it is repeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t see how that criticizes what I said before. If Rand can advocate sex, for the purpose of celebrating one´s existence instead of reproduction, and I believe Rand said drinking was fine, as long as you didn´t overdo it of course, then using drugs for fun, or for the purpose of celebrating one´s existence (if we take that to be synonymous with "fun"), is morally justifiable.

I would thing that recreational drug use is reality-evading, since it's goal is to turn the mentality inward and is therefore egocentric/solopsitic in function and not introspective, and becomes habitual since it is repeated.

Couldn´t you say the same for reading a book or being engrossed in a movie? They are all experiences people choose to aquire. I think drugs are no exception.

I think the habitual use of a drug is a sign of the user´s psychological problems. He uses the drug as a means to solve some esteem issue, perhaps. For example, I have known people who have poor self-esteem and have taken ecstasy, and it means a lot to them. For others who already are quite confident, ecstasy is something fun, but they can move on easily. Blaming the drug is missing the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t see how that criticizes what I said before. If Rand can advocate sex, for the purpose of celebrating one´s existence instead of reproduction, and I believe Rand said drinking was fine, as long as you didn´t overdo it of course, then using drugs for fun, or for the purpose of celebrating one´s existence (if we take that to be synonymous with "fun"), is morally justifiable.

Couldn´t you say the same for reading a book or being engrossed in a movie? They are all experiences people choose to aquire. I think drugs are no exception.

I think the habitual use of a drug is a sign of the user´s psychological problems. He uses the drug as a means to solve some esteem issue, perhaps. For example, I have known people who have poor self-esteem and have taken ecstasy, and it means a lot to them. For others who already are quite confident, ecstasy is something fun, but they can move on easily. Blaming the drug is missing the point.

Reading a book or watching a move focuses the mind outward. (If you can find it, Read "Kant Versus Sullivan"). Using a psycho-active drug, qua psycho-active drug (in a non-meical context) is attempting to use the mind to generated material that should come from outside the ego (which is Platonic; re "the Cave". One may and should look inward to examine function. i.e. introspection but not to generate content except through the process of reasoning re: factual premises+valid reasoning=true conclusions.

While the use of drugs to alleviate psychological problems may be true in some cases, most of the time it's done because it "feels good" (I always said that if I did any of this beyond the stage of curisity, my drug of choice would be speed. I might have been willing to drop acid, but only under very contolled circumstances and with safety precuations that did not exist in the normal settings and knowing what I know now, I couldn't even be tempted to). I tried it enougo to "get it" (the times were different, drugs were controversial and I am curiosity-driven) and it didn't feel good so I dropped it. Most stoners don't look at it beyond the range of the moment. In fact, having had the experience, I wonder why persons would do it. One can easily "bend" one's mind and the drugs destroy your sense of time. If you've got good sci-fi and a good imagination, you don't need pot. If you're over 21, try re-studying algebra and the principles you missed at age 14; that'll take you somewhere else in a hurry. Even a proper study of Statistics will blow your mind. We can afford to study advanced math as principles (without getting scared of, sidetracked by or bogged down with arithmetical calculations) now because we have machines to do the number-crunching. One of the things I like about Accounting is to see the way it all comes togetyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t have "Kant vs Sullivan" available, so I don´t know what you mean exactly by how reading a book or watching a movie focuses the mind "outward". I think the experience of being engrossed in a book or movie is something happening internally. I think it is introspective. Regardless of if it is, I don´t see if whether an activity is introspective is relevant here. I´m saying that maybe "fun" can be defined as celebrating one´s existence, and that is a morally justifiable thing. If I´m incorrect here then please correct me.

Using a psycho-active drug, qua psycho-active drug (in a non-meical context) is attempting to use the mind to generated material that should come from outside the ego

It does come from outside. It is simply distorted. That´s the fun. We each get our kicks in different ways, but I´m saying that if it is done recreationally, as a celebration of existence, and not an evasion or as a means to attempt to solve a psychological deficiency, AND if it is done responsibly, then it is morally justified.

We may not agree or understand why certain people choose to enjoy themselves in particular ways, but that is still something up to the individual´s choice. I think Objectivism recognizes our right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that path may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the other rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t have "Kant vs Sullivan" available, so I don´t know what you mean exactly by how reading a book or watching a movie focuses the mind "outward". I think the experience of being engrossed in a book or movie is something happening internally. I think it is introspective. Regardless of if it is, I don´t see if whether an activity is introspective is relevant here. I´m saying that maybe "fun" can be defined as celebrating one´s existence, and that is a morally justifiable thing. If I´m incorrect here then please correct me.

It does come from outside. It is simply distorted. That´s the fun. We each get our kicks in different ways, but I´m saying that if it is done recreationally, as a celebration of existence, and not an evasion or as a means to attempt to solve a psychological deficiency, AND if it is done responsibly, then it is morally justified.

We may not agree or understand why certain people choose to enjoy themselves in particular ways, but that is still something up to the individual´s choice. I think Objectivism recognizes our right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that path may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the other rights.

[/quoJ

How does one celebrate existence (and the primacy thereof) by actions more consistent with solipsism i.e. the percieved resutl of deliberately implemented generation of neural activity that have nothing to do with sensory input fro the external world, which is the "existence" in "existence exists". That is the Primacy of Consciousness?

And saying "we get our kicks in different ways": Paul Revere and the Raiders had the answer to that in 1966 and it was called "Kicks". and if it's done in the name of "kicks", how do I know that it's not really all kinds of evsions? When did "for kicks" every justify anything in an Objectivist way? Isn't that the same as "If if feels good, do it"? and what does that go with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one celebrate existence (and the primacy thereof) by actions more consistent with solipsism i.e. the percieved resutl of deliberately implemented generation of neural activity that have nothing to do with sensory input fro the external world, which is the "existence" in "existence exists". That is the Primacy of Consciousness?

I don´t see why doing that kind of activity necessarily implies you must believe in the primacy of consciousness. Drunks don´t necessarily believe in it, so do people who smoke weed, and we can extend this to dreams, which also are unrelated to direct perception of reality since having dreams doesn´t imply that you believe in the primacy of consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t see why doing that kind of activity necessarily implies you must believe in the primacy of consciousness. Drunks don´t necessarily believe in it, so do people who smoke weed, and we can extend this to dreams, which also are unrelated to direct perception of reality since having dreams doesn´t imply that you believe in the primacy of consciousness.

All attempts to alter consiousness directly imply the Primacy of Consciouness by making it the prime motivator of the action. Why would I want to screw around with something in this manner if I didn't think it was proper by reason of being important enough to screw around with in this manner in the first place? And in the process detach it from the real world i.e. existence, the understanding of which is it's main function, which is what this does by focusing consciousness inwards.

Now I can't see why, after 1974, by which time we understood the mechanisms, anyone with an Objectivist bone in his body would want to do that. For one thing, there's too much in the real world to engage the mind to leave time for that kind of activity. I am not talking about curiosity here but even once we figured it out, there would be nothing gained from that kind of curiosity since we know that this kind of use of drugs does not enhnance consiouness in any way and often has repercussions later in life: Ever seen what a 50 year old stoner is like? If you're using the stuff regularly, Isn't it most likely that if you have a problem, you'll resort to using it more (don't try and con me; I already know the answer. I didn't spend my life in a wicker basket, I'm from the psychedelic and post-psychedelic era)?

Dreaming is not an act of deliberate anything but a by-product of normal sleep.

It just seems that people are bound and determined to do this and are torturing Objectivism to justify it.

Deliberately altering your consciousness for the sake of altering your consciousness is, in fact, imparing it by taking it away from existence. I can't find anything in Objectivism that says that it is all right to do this and most of what I see in Objectivism tells me that it is wrong to do this.

This is not even Epicurean. Epicureanism holds that seeking pleasure is OK if it does not do any harm, This does harm over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not true that using mind altering substances directly imply the Primacy of Consciousness. It depends on how you use it and the motivation for it. I'm talking about those who use it to celebrate one's existence (i.e. for fun). Those people who use it in this context would naturally limit their consumption to an appropriate level. I'm not talking about people who deliberately evading reality with every hit because they are so deprived.

Used in the appropriate way, there are no repercussions. You ought to determine this is by analyzing your own life and weighing the pros and cons. For example, weed does not kill brain cells. It stimulates brain cells (http://www.worldhealth.net/news/university_of_saskatchewan_research_sugg) and fights cancerous cells (http://blog.naturalstandard.com/natural_standard_blog/2009/04/marijuana-may-help-kill-brain-cancer-cells.html). There is no link between any cancer and weed. To imply that all 50 year old stoners are alike is a gross generalization. Likewise, I doubt taking a few hits of acid or MDMA would do any harm, as long as you do it responsibly knowing what you are getting into. Despite the propoganda that kids are taught (which I think stems from self-denying Judeo-Christian moral tradition), you won't lose your mind.

Leonard Peikoff spoke against 'puritanicalism' in Objectivism. On the Q & A section of his website (http://www.peikoff.com/q&a.html) you can find a question concerning this. Even though it talks about smoking and drinking, I would like to highlight its references to harming your health and dulling your mind since that seems to be your position:

Q: I am in college and thought that I understood Objectivism but now I'm confused. I was talking with a bunch of Objectivists who say that smoking is immoral because it is bad for your health, and drinking is immoral because it "fakes reality" by dulling your mind. Is that true? I don't smoke but I never thought that smoking made someone immoral.

A: Unfortunately, there is a puritanical streak in many Objectivists.

Smoking is not immoral unless, having weighed the evidence rationally, you are convinced that it is a threat to your health. In such a case, habitual smoking would be a deliberately self-destructive action, and as such immoral. But first you are obliged to study the facts yourself and be rationally convinced of its harmfulness; no one can demand that you take a government report seriously. Further, the issue depends to some extent on how much you smoke. I know of no evidence that light or occasional smoking--for pleasure say, or under stress--poses any health risk, and if this is correct, there is nothing immoral about such smoking.

As to drinking, first of all it does not necessarily "dull your mind." It depends on how much you drink, and the full context, including your health, the circumstances, etc. Moderate drinking with dinner or at a party is not harmful, according to my knowledge, does not interfere with the ability to think, and can be relaxing and even enjoyable; some doctors even recommend it as a health measure. Of course, excessive drinking is harmful and can even be fatal, but so can excessive ingestion of water.

Even in circumstances in which improper drinking does dull your mind, that is not the same thing as "faking reality." It is one thing to diminish one's ability to perceive reality, and a different thing to pretend that reality is something other than it is. Both these states handicap one's action, but only the second constitutes the beginning of a war against reality.

Please don't take this letter as a sanction for a life consisting of nothing but smoking and drinking.

So, it is possible to do this activities without causing harm. It is possible to enjoy your life more with these substances. I'm not saying that everybody can or should. I'm just saying that it is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...