Shooting up DMT is better, in my opinion. Just like taking MDMA rectally is best.

What's with all these "psychedelics and the law" type debates lately? I'm tired of this...

Psychedelics have done me far more good than harm over the course of my life; I do not typically advocate for their use by general individuals, but I do not support any efforts to limit the supply of psychedelics. They are good for you, quite often; for your mind, a part of the human make-up that many people fail to realize can need maintenance as well as the body.

Surely when an insult is made against one, offense is meant, no? Why hide the truth behind what has become a cliched and meaningless sentiment?

"lol" ought to have died long, long ago. It is the most annoying, obnoxious three letter combination in the English language. Every time I see it I feel like I die a little.

My efficiency is 94% and this is why:

I don't think most people bother with my arguments; perhaps too complicated for the average debater?

A good grammar is far better than any work of fiction, save perhaps the works of Verne and Lovecraft.

Some drugs do, some drugs don't.

Acid, shrooms, pot, various others are mind/consciousness-expanding, in both my opinion as a user (though I prefer the word "psychonaut"), and in the opinions of many other psychonauts and researchers. However, as Timothy Leary said in the '80s, there are some consciousness-closing drugs. I view non-psychedelics as being mind-closing, and have never supported their use.

Then, as Terence McKenna well says, television is probably just about the worst drug:

I recall one of my most shameful schoolboy memories: there was this REALLY fucking annoying girl, probably mildly retarded (at least very slow, developmentally-speaking), who wouldn't leave me and my friends alone in class. So I took out a piece of paper, handed it around to everybody who sat at our table (it was a tech class), and brought it to the teacher, filled with signatures to have this girl removed from our table. I felt bad immediately afterwards, but in the end we got the rest of the semester without her.

Sounds almost like a happy ending, but in the end it became a mark of shame; I couldn't look that teacher in the eye again for the rest of my high school years, and realization fully hit home when another teacher recalled a similar incident in one of her classes many years earlier, saying that it was the one time she had truly ever become angry (and verbally abusive) at a student.

Srom might have dumb religious beliefs, many not even grounded in his religion, but that isn't reason enough to have him removes from this site.

Before one can ponder the point at which life begins, first one must determine what qualifies as life. I do not fully accept the existence of such a thing as birthing, much less believe it to be any more important than conception: there can be conception without birthing, but without conception, there can be no birthing. The foetus is alive prior to birthing. Why is it that we view birthing as being of such import? Because it is the first time that the human is seen to exist outside of its mother? That is a rather sensory-oriented position, too much so for a lifelong solipsist like myself.

Life is existence. Conception gives existence, birth doesn't.

Business management, maybe; probably, considering the billions he's made through Trump Enterprises, but there is difference betwixt economics and business. One is micro, dealing only with a handful of variables and assets, whereas economics deals with all of society.