To me, everything that Haoh wrote in his second-to-last post indicates the need for a society with flexible laws that allow for human nature and changing times. With all due respect to the man, it seems he is just quoting and replying simply for the sake of quoting and replying, as he suddenly seems unable to grasp my points.

My contention is that there is a sense of evolution involved where there is an underlying morality that is just about doing what is best for the individual. In a society, these interests compete and the state is formed to forge a morality that will protect the group while allowing the individual to find as much fulfillment as possible. Unfortunately, because it is by definition so easy to be passive, what is and isn't "fulfillment" becomes muddled and the passionate few rule the day and try to impose (yes, impose) their wills on the majority.

The evolution comes into play as we develop better methods for achieving true individual fulfillment while still protecting the rights of others, insofar as that's possible. Democracy was a major step in this direction, but even that had to be tempered; which is why, for instance, America is a republic.

People that abuse drugs are certainly after personal fulfillment, but their actions have adverse effects on others. I won't go into the hows and whats again: just read my previous posts in this thread. But that is why I said I was morally superior to alcohol and cocaine abusers. It's not me calling myself better overall, it's me saying that in that particular area, I am trying to balance my own self-interests with those of my community - partly because I recognize how interrelated those interests are. Also, in the case of drugs, I do not want to risk harming myself for the sake of such a transitory high - also a moral decision of sorts.