[ExI] Which nootropics work best?

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps equally important:  Why are these substances illegal?  Sure,
> they're "dangerous" but in a very different way than alcohol (for
> example).   I ask who is threatened by mind-expanding substances -
> even discounting those currently classified as schedule I.

Those who become addicted, to the point where they are unable to think
normally (and thus, hold a job or do other things commonly required to
participate in society - and laws are, mainly, for those participating in
society) because they're constantly in altered states.

Now, if they want to pack up, withdraw from society, and go off elsewhere
to be in this, fine.  Note that they will be unable to obtain food (they'll be
off on their own with no one to buy from - and unable to farm in that state
of mind), for one, making this a suicidal choice.

Thus the problem: addicts *don't* actually withdraw from society.  They
stick around but become unable to play by the rules.  Thus, the law
wishes to prevent that from happening in the first place.

...or such is the justification given.  Personally, I think it may have a grain
of truth but the degree is vastly overstated, metaphorically resulting in
using sledgehammers to swat flies on china.