You should not do everything that is not "bad," as that literally entails everything. But, drugs are not universally bad (note that "drugs" is a large umbrella term, however). They can be for an individual, but not necessarily in a universal context. From a utilitarian standpoint, if you have more to gain from drugs than you lose, it is not bad for the individual. The tricky thing with drugs is that they alter proper analysis and perception, often leading to immature analysis of delayed vs instant gratification. A large amount of them have more negative effects than positive ones, but because due to the drugs an individual can't rationally discern that, and thus they are caught in a causal loop.
Personal experience illuminates, but does not demonstrate. I'm sorry to hear about your sister, but that does not provide any "proof" that drugs are universally bad.
To the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Agreed on both points. That is not what I'm debating. Ironically, the second quote segement in this post addresses the very issue you are faced with now.
You may try using the word "unsuccessful" which amusingly has a more relevant and appropriate application here than "bad." I'm more opposed to your rhetoric than your argument.
Opinions can be based on facts and are never wrong. I wish you'd stop assuming that the word carries such a negative connotation. Regardless, you do not seem to understand what the word means and the large scope it encompasses.
I did. And a lot of valid points were made to argue the opinion or theory that it is bad. And I appreciate those opinions and largely agree with them. It does not change the fact that they are opinions, however.
And yes, I am arguing semantics as when something is called "bad," it is impossible to approach the subject from any angle without doing so, as you're dealing with a subjective/interpretive debate (or, if it pleases the raging fanboys/anti-fanboys, "explanation").
