Even if you "need' a 16000 RPM drive, just make it for your local drive that you play your videos directly off of. Use 5400 for all the other ones. Just move your file before watching it. Sure, if you're an impatient baby and want to watch something within 5 seconds of it entering your mind, then you might have to wait 5 minutes if the file is 4.5G. Then again, it's the type of waiting you can go pee or make your snack during.
Really, that's all you need. A good map-drives script that maps all your drives to all your computers so everybody has access to everything. I'm almost out of drive letters, but I basically have your goal. No solution. Just using what's in the operating system already.
Have another script that you run to index things. Basically, a dir/s command [add filesizes to the end if you can]. There's your index of where everything is. Use grep to access it quickly, or load it all up in a text editor and find to access it slowly. I like grep. Regular expressions help.
Intolerance should not be tolerated. Freedom should be. One of the favorite responses from bigots is that you are being a bigot too by calling them assholes. It happens every time.
P1-3: Flawed metaphor. We don't ban individual play in the stock market, while we ban individual play in the drug market. Individuals are allowed to fail all they want in the stock market. You're confusing regulation with prohibition. Stock market operations have rules: Just like liquor distribution has rules. Neither alcohol nor stock purchases are banned due to the acts of individuals. The economic crash we've had is due to corporate greed, it doesn't mean nobody should be able to play the market anymore, nor does it mean corporations don't get to play the market anymore. You're using something that was never prohibited as an excuse for prohibition. Amazing logic you have there.
P4: Alcohol is not at all a red herring. It's a drug, just like any other. In fact, it's fatal overdose rate is triple that for daily users when compared to daily cocaine users, and more people die from alcohol each year than all illegal drugs combined. Again, you selectively throw out MAJOR data points (like alcohol) and call them red herrings because they don't fit with your invalid logic.
ARMY OF ZOMBIES! LOL. We have the largest prison system in the world due to our drug war. These people aren't on drugs [except those that got them into the prison, which does happen], and we're paying over $30K/yr in taxes to house these people. EVEN IF THEY WERE HOMELESS they would not cost society that much per year. You've only served to illustrate my point further by indicating your problem is paying for it, then giving a solution that causes you to pay more. Do you have a fucking clue about how much money has been spent in the drug war, vs how much users of alcohol and cigarettes have added expenses into the medical system? The ratio is huge. 1) Alcohol. 2) Portugal. 3) Freedom costs money.
It's hilarious that you are stating this in fiscal terms, when we've spent more on the drug war than any country in the world, and spend more on prisons. You are saying "we shoudln't allow people to do this because it will cost X, so let's spend X*Y [where Y > 1] instead!" Totally idiotic logic that flies in the face of a reality that you apparently cover your eyes from.
Zombiehood! Somebody's been watching too much Reefer Madness. You sound like a 1980s PSA. You must be into some kind of false reality, where you decide things are a certain way, and ignore all information to the contrary. I started out as an anti-drug crusader too, but then I realized how fucked up my own logic was back in my online debates that I had in the 1980s. OH I SEE, you're a Christian. That explains a lot about covering your eyes and pretending in false realities. That also explains why you consider evil to be something that exists in intimate objects. It's an extension of animism and demonic possession. Shit that makes sense for Christians, but not for people who don't believe in sky fairies.
Sorry, I'm whipping the ad hominems out now. I've noticed you had a major problem with logic, and now I see you're a Christian, which explains a lot. You base your whole existence on illogic, no wonder you're scared of satan's evil zombie hoard. Jesus used cannabis, and Jesus can suck my dick.
If you show me the recreational anthrax or plutonium user, you might have a valid comparison to make.
Otherwise, you're just continuing on in the rantings of a 20th century freedom hater. You keep repeating the same things over and over: Oh my god. Someone's life can be ruined over it. Therefore it should be illegal. While ignoring alcohol, which you put in the should-be-legal category! What a laughingstock you are.
By your own logic, you actually should also be against alcohol being legal. It causes far more harm to society than cocaine. Snicker.
Ahh, the drugs themselves are creating the suffering. Nope. Don't agree. They're just drugs, sitting there. Neutral, like a gun or a sandwich. It takes people to mis-use them for that to happen, and most people don't mis-use most substances. In the end, you want to control the freedoms of the responsible citing the folly of the irresponsible. It's a despicable position.
No, it's because of it. Perhaps you've never created anything while intoxicated yourself, but you can't discount that it happens. In some cases, it is in spite of, of course. But not all. I know it's convenient to think in binary.
Hunter S. Thompson and William S. Burroughs might have been something. But I doubt they'd be remembered like they are today.
Laws against drug use are a ploy to steal rights? First off, remember, most drugs were criminalized over racism against the groups using it. In those cases, it certainly was, in part, a ploy to steal rights from a specific race. But it's scarcely a ploy: A law prohibiting X takes away your previous right to do X. That's not a ploy, that's overly what a law is. Basically, some people who do X fuck up, so let's take away the ability to do X from other people as well. If drunk driving accidents increased and they banned all cars, even from those who never drank, it would be the same type of mentality. Legislation via bad apple example. If our laws have to be designed for the worst of us, we may as well put on a rubber suit and a helmet right now.
P1: Yup. All drug users do is do more drugs while staring at the wall. Excellent summary. Fortunately we have a great deal of artistic works, unix [lsd], and all the real world inventions based on Star Trek [amphetamines] to prove you wrong. There's more to it than your vilified strawman.
P2: Too bad no dictators have tried that, eh?
P3: So the anvils are on tarps now? What about gargoyles?
Treated in what sense. Medically? Legally? Ethicly? In the end, the effects on freedom and choice are the same, and even 1 substance prohibited in an over-the-top manner is enough to be used a pretense for trampling on most amendments in the constitution. The substance doesn't even have to be known for this statement to be universally true. Funny thing how poisons aren't criminalized; it's not necessary to criminalize things that have actual harm past a truly harmful threshold.
Quite simply, you don't love freedom enough, and you don't understand hard drugs except in a cartoonish manner, like the way most teabaggers are scared of socialism without really seeing it for what it is. I honestly think the 2nd paragraph in your response supports me, not you, but hey, I know you're not going to agree with that. Again, potential != realization. You don't criminalize putting anvils at the tops of buildings because some people drop them on Bugs Bunny, based on their POTENTIAL to do harm, anymore than you ban guns or cars from their potential [and reality] to do harm. And that was a pretty sad response about Portugal.
And yet, since cocaine prohibition, availability has greatly increased, and price has decreased. This is in today's world, where transport is FAR easier than in the opium war days. If prohibition of cocaine increases it's availability, then by your logic, this should increase the addiction that you fear so much. Meanwhile, the prohibition causes those to not seek medical treatment for fear of prosecution. A prosecution whose results are often incarcerating people. Which costs $30-$50K per year per person. Yet somehow, if that person had a problem, or stopped working, he would be costing us even more than that? Then there's the freedom cost, which you continually ignore. The closure of civil rights in America more or less started when Nixon declared the war on drugs, though parts of it started in the early 1900s, along with prohibition. Are you really that blinded by your idealism?
You do realize that they decriminalized all drugs in Portugal. This is TODAY, with measurable effects. http://cryptogon.com/?p=9632... Gee, why didn't addiction go up, if you're so smart? Show me some current, real-world examples supporting your position. Because Portugal, in the past 5 yrs, proved all your arguments wrong. I really wish I'd bothered to bring this up earlier, but then again, it's funny how I can type a sentence or two and receive paragraphs of vitriol from you, and that's been kind of entertaining.
Huh? Now you've totally lost me in your babble. If substance X causes existing policy A to become policy B, and policy B causes more destruction to society than substance X did in the first place, by your logic, we should blame substance X and not policy B. So let's see: If alcohol caused prohibition, and prohibition created gangsters, Al Capone, and one of the biggest crime eras in American history, then we should blame it all on alcohol and not prohibition. (Nevermind that beer was the first non-juice drink civilized mankind invented. A few idiots do something worse than the rest of us, there fore their idiocy is blamed on on their own personal responsibility, but the substance they used.)
You kind of remind me of the Christian ideal that evil itself is some tangible substance out there, and that when good people go evil, it is the substance of the evil out there by Satan that is causing it, and not their own stupid fucking decisions.
You just cited a war that was caused by prohibition as a reason to have prohibition. Really? Wow. Good one there, haha! Funny thing how that war ended with the tolerance of Opium. They say if you can't remember history, you're doomed to repeat it -- but I think you're living proof that it can be repeated even if you do remember it. If you want to make a point, show me how opium was more harmful to their society than an actual fucking war
I love the "if it's legal, more people will take it" basis for your arguments. You state it like it's such an obvious tautology that one would have to be a fucking idiot to not realize it. Yet one has merely to survey 18-21 year olds in nations where the drinking age is 18 (Europe) to know that no, something being legal doesn't automatically lead to increased use. Hell, the teenage marijuana use is higher in American than the Netherlands! But hey, keep ignoring that reality is not so black and white, and keep spouting out your 20th Century political buzz[*]-statements.
[*]No pun intended.
You even admit there will always be addicts. Yet jail solves this better than medical measures how? Because having to support the largest prison population in the world is better use of our tax dollars how?
Laws to save the casual idiot. Ahh, the folly of anti-freedom crusaders everywhere. Why can't we say fuck on tv? The children. Oh yes. Everything has to set up for the worst case. Everyone has to be reduced to the level of an idiot (or child). If 1 in 100,000 people abuse something (or even 7 in 10), then the other 99,999 (or even 3) have to have their freedoms limited by the stupids.
But hey, don't read actual information or news on the topic. Simply keep spouting 20th century rhetoric.
I say 20th century, because no real drugs were criminalized prior to then [I'm fudging it a little, cocaine prohibitions began around the 1880s], and by the 22nd century, the drug war will have been given up on.
I suggest starting with the links I already gave you.
You do realize the majority of addition is to legal prescriptions, right? You need to get off your anti-illegal-drug high-horse crusade. You're a laughable relic.
i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody should be banned from driving. Instead, prosecute people for the actual crimes they commit.
Your post is quite funny when read in the Michael Jackson from South Park voice. "You're being ignorant." He kept exclaiming it over and over again, but without evidence to back it up, it was just ridiculous.
You really need to revisit researching specific drugs and their effects on people, including statistics on addiction. "Simple exposure is enough to spiral lives into [badness]" is about as logically valid as "simple exposure to a bicycle is enough to spiral a life into a fatal motorcycle accident". Take your gateway theories and return them to the 1970s where they belong. Plenty of individuals can use something poorly [40,000 car accidents a year, for example], while others cannot. Even the government's own statistics -- that I looked up myself in the Virginia Tech library -- state that only 30% of crack users become addicted. It's actually much higher with nicotine -- which kills a greater number of people as well. And cocaine overdose? 1/3rd the per-capita rate for daily cocaine users than the overdose rate of daily alcohol users. Heroin does zero bodily damage: It's a fucking brand name. Meth is just another stimulant. You ever done stimulants? Either you're an addictive type who likes them all, or they are all just something to do that doesn't fill you with any desire to do them repeatedly. Your doctor quote is pretty meaningless, it's like saying truck drivers are the profession most likely to get in a car accident. More addicts if it's legal, really? If crack was legalized, you'd go out and smoke it tomorrow? No, didn't think so. Some more people might experiment, but if drugs were legal, more treatment options would there -- instead of treating a medical problem like a criminal problem. Funny thing how there are even drugs in prison. It's unwinnable, but idiots like you want to continue taking away our resources and freedoms chasing what is basically a prejudiced idea. Trans fats addict [new research] and kill more people, for chrissakes.
No, the root problem is that I don't agree with you. I IQ test at 150 and have studied the politics of the drug war pretty intensely for about 18 years. You basically just denied what I said and threw in an ad hominem attack.
You think the drug cartels are just going to lay down and stop operating if marijuana is legalized? Haha, good one.
The simple fact of the matter is the drug war does far more to hurt more people than any amount of drugs themselves. You do know we are the highest incinerator on the planet, and aruund half our prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. Meanwhile, California is out of money, and is letting murderers out of jail instead of pot smokers, and the drug war led the charge at erasing civil rights, setting up the stage for the war on terror to continue. But hey. Blame it all on the substance. When police lie and set people up, something that happens every day, ignore the freedom that is taken away, and whine about the other bees in your hive not producing as much honey as you think they should. Your ignorance on the matter becomes more apparent with each passing comment. I suggest you catch up on the last 15 year's news, and maybe read the DRCNet weekly news letter for a decade.
You do realize over 20,000 people have been killed in the drug war in Mexico since Calderon took office. But hey! It's the drug's fault! Everyone knows drugs make you murder! Gosh!
Because they all should be legal, and most of the arguments of prohibition [and costs of prohibition, even to non-drug users] apply to all drugs, not just an individual drug. For example, legalizing marijuana isn't going to take drug profits away from organized crime; they'll just sell more hard drugs. In fact, legalizing marijuana without legalizing cocaine is almost certain to increase the availability of cocaine, as they'll pedal more of it with the marijuana income gone. It's all or nothing.
"drug addiction is serious, and it destroys lives. completely independent of any social or legal policy. recognize the fucking obvious, or be a complete fool"
Recognize your own foolishness. You claim it's independent of any social or legal policy, yet then go on for great lengths about how different drugs should have different legal policy. It's almost like there's two of you, and one isn't listening to the other.
You do realize cocaine was only made illegal due to anti-black racism, in the same way that marijuana was mostly made illegal due to anti-hispanic racism, in the same way that opium was made illegal due to anti-asian racism. But hey! Let's pretend alcohol and nicotine should be legal, because they are the white man's drug. Let's go on a fishing expedition and make up tables to show how right we are that our own race's drugs are the best.
wait - alcohol is moderate inebriation, and coke is high inebriation? BWAHAHAHHAHAHA. Anybody who knows better is going to laugh at your post. I sure am.
You might want to look up the government's own addiction statistics on crack and cocaine. I have.
You've drawn a line in an imaginary place that doesn't exist. "These drugs automatically ok, these drugs automatically bad."
Individuals don't exist! Only "macro" statistics. By your logic, driving should be banned, since it kills far more people than illegal drugs. Oh wait. They help us produce for the hive, therefore they're okay.
If I think it makes somebody more interesting, than no matter what you think, it did make them more interesting to me. You see, this whole "no matter what you think" is kind of a fallacy. Interesting is subjective.
p.s. Life is about having fun and enjoying life, not about achieving your maximum throughput as defined by your rankings. Insects are made to strictly produce; sentient species like humans have the added ability of being able to have fun. You might want to try it sometime.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you "need' a 16000 RPM drive, just make it for your local drive that you play your videos directly off of. Use 5400 for all the other ones. Just move your file before watching it. Sure, if you're an impatient baby and want to watch something within 5 seconds of it entering your mind, then you might have to wait 5 minutes if the file is 4.5G. Then again, it's the type of waiting you can go pee or make your snack during.
Have another script that you run to index things. Basically, a dir /s command [add filesizes to the end if you can]. There's your index of where everything is. Use grep to access it quickly, or load it all up in a text editor and find to access it slowly. I like grep. Regular expressions help.
Intolerance should not be tolerated. Freedom should be. One of the favorite responses from bigots is that you are being a bigot too by calling them assholes. It happens every time.
P4: Alcohol is not at all a red herring. It's a drug, just like any other. In fact, it's fatal overdose rate is triple that for daily users when compared to daily cocaine users, and more people die from alcohol each year than all illegal drugs combined. Again, you selectively throw out MAJOR data points (like alcohol) and call them red herrings because they don't fit with your invalid logic.
ARMY OF ZOMBIES! LOL. We have the largest prison system in the world due to our drug war. These people aren't on drugs [except those that got them into the prison, which does happen], and we're paying over $30K/yr in taxes to house these people. EVEN IF THEY WERE HOMELESS they would not cost society that much per year. You've only served to illustrate my point further by indicating your problem is paying for it, then giving a solution that causes you to pay more. Do you have a fucking clue about how much money has been spent in the drug war, vs how much users of alcohol and cigarettes have added expenses into the medical system? The ratio is huge. 1) Alcohol. 2) Portugal. 3) Freedom costs money.
It's hilarious that you are stating this in fiscal terms, when we've spent more on the drug war than any country in the world, and spend more on prisons. You are saying "we shoudln't allow people to do this because it will cost X, so let's spend X*Y [where Y > 1] instead!" Totally idiotic logic that flies in the face of a reality that you apparently cover your eyes from.
Zombiehood! Somebody's been watching too much Reefer Madness. You sound like a 1980s PSA. You must be into some kind of false reality, where you decide things are a certain way, and ignore all information to the contrary. I started out as an anti-drug crusader too, but then I realized how fucked up my own logic was back in my online debates that I had in the 1980s. OH I SEE, you're a Christian. That explains a lot about covering your eyes and pretending in false realities. That also explains why you consider evil to be something that exists in intimate objects. It's an extension of animism and demonic possession. Shit that makes sense for Christians, but not for people who don't believe in sky fairies.
Sorry, I'm whipping the ad hominems out now. I've noticed you had a major problem with logic, and now I see you're a Christian, which explains a lot. You base your whole existence on illogic, no wonder you're scared of satan's evil zombie hoard. Jesus used cannabis, and Jesus can suck my dick.
Microsoft :: Capitalism. :: Fascism. :: Communism.
Apple
Unix
Otherwise, you're just continuing on in the rantings of a 20th century freedom hater. You keep repeating the same things over and over: Oh my god. Someone's life can be ruined over it. Therefore it should be illegal. While ignoring alcohol, which you put in the should-be-legal category! What a laughingstock you are.
By your own logic, you actually should also be against alcohol being legal. It causes far more harm to society than cocaine. Snicker.
Ahh, the drugs themselves are creating the suffering. Nope. Don't agree. They're just drugs, sitting there. Neutral, like a gun or a sandwich. It takes people to mis-use them for that to happen, and most people don't mis-use most substances. In the end, you want to control the freedoms of the responsible citing the folly of the irresponsible. It's a despicable position.
Hunter S. Thompson and William S. Burroughs might have been something. But I doubt they'd be remembered like they are today.
Laws against drug use are a ploy to steal rights? First off, remember, most drugs were criminalized over racism against the groups using it. In those cases, it certainly was, in part, a ploy to steal rights from a specific race. But it's scarcely a ploy: A law prohibiting X takes away your previous right to do X. That's not a ploy, that's overly what a law is. Basically, some people who do X fuck up, so let's take away the ability to do X from other people as well. If drunk driving accidents increased and they banned all cars, even from those who never drank, it would be the same type of mentality. Legislation via bad apple example. If our laws have to be designed for the worst of us, we may as well put on a rubber suit and a helmet right now.
P2: Too bad no dictators have tried that, eh?
P3: So the anvils are on tarps now? What about gargoyles?
Treated in what sense. Medically? Legally? Ethicly? In the end, the effects on freedom and choice are the same, and even 1 substance prohibited in an over-the-top manner is enough to be used a pretense for trampling on most amendments in the constitution. The substance doesn't even have to be known for this statement to be universally true. Funny thing how poisons aren't criminalized; it's not necessary to criminalize things that have actual harm past a truly harmful threshold.
Quite simply, you don't love freedom enough, and you don't understand hard drugs except in a cartoonish manner, like the way most teabaggers are scared of socialism without really seeing it for what it is. I honestly think the 2nd paragraph in your response supports me, not you, but hey, I know you're not going to agree with that. Again, potential != realization. You don't criminalize putting anvils at the tops of buildings because some people drop them on Bugs Bunny, based on their POTENTIAL to do harm, anymore than you ban guns or cars from their potential [and reality] to do harm. And that was a pretty sad response about Portugal.
You do realize that they decriminalized all drugs in Portugal. This is TODAY, with measurable effects. http://cryptogon.com/?p=9632 ... Gee, why didn't addiction go up, if you're so smart? Show me some current, real-world examples supporting your position. Because Portugal, in the past 5 yrs, proved all your arguments wrong. I really wish I'd bothered to bring this up earlier, but then again, it's funny how I can type a sentence or two and receive paragraphs of vitriol from you, and that's been kind of entertaining.
You kind of remind me of the Christian ideal that evil itself is some tangible substance out there, and that when good people go evil, it is the substance of the evil out there by Satan that is causing it, and not their own stupid fucking decisions.
You need to watch the South Park on AA.
You just cited a war that was caused by prohibition as a reason to have prohibition. Really? Wow. Good one there, haha! Funny thing how that war ended with the tolerance of Opium. They say if you can't remember history, you're doomed to repeat it -- but I think you're living proof that it can be repeated even if you do remember it. If you want to make a point, show me how opium was more harmful to their society than an actual fucking war
[*]No pun intended.
You even admit there will always be addicts. Yet jail solves this better than medical measures how? Because having to support the largest prison population in the world is better use of our tax dollars how?
Laws to save the casual idiot. Ahh, the folly of anti-freedom crusaders everywhere. Why can't we say fuck on tv? The children. Oh yes. Everything has to set up for the worst case. Everyone has to be reduced to the level of an idiot (or child). If 1 in 100,000 people abuse something (or even 7 in 10), then the other 99,999 (or even 3) have to have their freedoms limited by the stupids.
But hey, don't read actual information or news on the topic. Simply keep spouting 20th century rhetoric.
I say 20th century, because no real drugs were criminalized prior to then [I'm fudging it a little, cocaine prohibitions began around the 1880s], and by the 22nd century, the drug war will have been given up on.
I suggest starting with the links I already gave you.
You do realize the majority of addition is to legal prescriptions, right? You need to get off your anti-illegal-drug high-horse crusade. You're a laughable relic.
i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody should be banned from driving. Instead, prosecute people for the actual crimes they commit.
Your post is quite funny when read in the Michael Jackson from South Park voice. "You're being ignorant." He kept exclaiming it over and over again, but without evidence to back it up, it was just ridiculous.
You really need to revisit researching specific drugs and their effects on people, including statistics on addiction. "Simple exposure is enough to spiral lives into [badness]" is about as logically valid as "simple exposure to a bicycle is enough to spiral a life into a fatal motorcycle accident". Take your gateway theories and return them to the 1970s where they belong. Plenty of individuals can use something poorly [40,000 car accidents a year, for example], while others cannot. Even the government's own statistics -- that I looked up myself in the Virginia Tech library -- state that only 30% of crack users become addicted. It's actually much higher with nicotine -- which kills a greater number of people as well. And cocaine overdose? 1/3rd the per-capita rate for daily cocaine users than the overdose rate of daily alcohol users. Heroin does zero bodily damage: It's a fucking brand name. Meth is just another stimulant. You ever done stimulants? Either you're an addictive type who likes them all, or they are all just something to do that doesn't fill you with any desire to do them repeatedly. Your doctor quote is pretty meaningless, it's like saying truck drivers are the profession most likely to get in a car accident. More addicts if it's legal, really? If crack was legalized, you'd go out and smoke it tomorrow? No, didn't think so. Some more people might experiment, but if drugs were legal, more treatment options would there -- instead of treating a medical problem like a criminal problem. Funny thing how there are even drugs in prison. It's unwinnable, but idiots like you want to continue taking away our resources and freedoms chasing what is basically a prejudiced idea. Trans fats addict [new research] and kill more people, for chrissakes.
You think the drug cartels are just going to lay down and stop operating if marijuana is legalized? Haha, good one.
The simple fact of the matter is the drug war does far more to hurt more people than any amount of drugs themselves. You do know we are the highest incinerator on the planet, and aruund half our prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. Meanwhile, California is out of money, and is letting murderers out of jail instead of pot smokers, and the drug war led the charge at erasing civil rights, setting up the stage for the war on terror to continue. But hey. Blame it all on the substance. When police lie and set people up, something that happens every day, ignore the freedom that is taken away, and whine about the other bees in your hive not producing as much honey as you think they should. Your ignorance on the matter becomes more apparent with each passing comment. I suggest you catch up on the last 15 year's news, and maybe read the DRCNet weekly news letter for a decade.
You do realize over 20,000 people have been killed in the drug war in Mexico since Calderon took office. But hey! It's the drug's fault! Everyone knows drugs make you murder! Gosh!
"drug addiction is serious, and it destroys lives. completely independent of any social or legal policy. recognize the fucking obvious, or be a complete fool"
Recognize your own foolishness. You claim it's independent of any social or legal policy, yet then go on for great lengths about how different drugs should have different legal policy. It's almost like there's two of you, and one isn't listening to the other.
You do realize cocaine was only made illegal due to anti-black racism, in the same way that marijuana was mostly made illegal due to anti-hispanic racism, in the same way that opium was made illegal due to anti-asian racism. But hey! Let's pretend alcohol and nicotine should be legal, because they are the white man's drug. Let's go on a fishing expedition and make up tables to show how right we are that our own race's drugs are the best.
You might want to look up the government's own addiction statistics on crack and cocaine. I have.
Individuals don't exist! Only "macro" statistics. By your logic, driving should be banned, since it kills far more people than illegal drugs. Oh wait. They help us produce for the hive, therefore they're okay.
Mr. Mackie called. He wanted to let you know that drugs are bad, mmm'kay?
If I think it makes somebody more interesting, than no matter what you think, it did make them more interesting to me. You see, this whole "no matter what you think" is kind of a fallacy. Interesting is subjective.
Nancy Reagan called. She wants 1980 back. Watch out for those crack babies!!
p.s. Life is about having fun and enjoying life, not about achieving your maximum throughput as defined by your rankings. Insects are made to strictly produce; sentient species like humans have the added ability of being able to have fun. You might want to try it sometime.