Tuesday, November 08, 2005

eat me societal stigmas

drugs are good, mmkay. if you can evade addiction before it interferes with your life's necessary responsibilities (work) then it's beautiful.

most people can't afford to vacation in the south of france or spend a weekend at a five-star b/b getting mudbaths and massages from asian women. what is relatively affordable, though, is a quarter bag. or a pack of cigarettes, or beer, or whatever else (say, if you're wily enough to con your shrink into perscribing enough xanax to bring down an elephant).

is it morally wrong to want to escape the drudgery of american life? i want the freedom to attain happiness, not just pursue it. if i need a little chemical assistance from time to time then so be it. i don't apologize.

legality and morality are far from interdepedent -- often they're mutually exclusive. if i'm supposed to feel guilty about imbibing in one particular chemical (caffeine is a chemical too, for the hypocrites) if it makes my mundane life a little more tolerable and doesn't hurt anyone, then i guess i'm just a bad person. i'll live with it.

after reading jane's post i wanted to add something.

people harp on the detrimental aspects of abusing substances on a person's health, that regularly partaking in such things shortens yoru life.

but why the obsession with quantity? would you rather live to be 100 and never have experienced happniess (in whatever form) or die at 30 having enjoyed the fuck out of your short time?

i would be the person that gets cancer and refuses chemotherapy. i'd rather have another good month than six spent in agony.

No comments: