But the previous letter writer was dead right. It is incredibly disingenuous to start off with the assumption that your opponents are wrong, mock their opinion, and then say, "Ah, lets have an open debate!" That is a child's rhetorical device, and it contributes nothing.

The question for Ms. Walsh and Cary is, do you support an open forum or not? Because you are going to get people who disagree with your advice, and people who disagree with the assumptions of the people writing in.

I have compassion for many of the people seeking advice. For others, I don't, because I don't think their situations as they describe them merit compassion. If my compassion is given without any regards to merit at all, what good is it? If I had a problem and I wanted advice, I would want more than anything for my problems to be given an honest and critical evaluation.

I guess I just refuse to disengage my critical faculties simply because someone has asked for advice. And I can't shake the feeling that doing so insults the very people that you claim to be defending.

Vitriol! Vitriolic!!

Seriously! VITRIOL! Garr!

And a quote from Hume. And a list of letter writers I refuse to read. That's the ticket.

Vitriol.

I think that flopping is a natural and inevitable reaction to the rising number of "star" players who's entire game is to throw themselves bodily at a defender and push them out of place. In the new, let's get more offense at all cost NBA, players like Manu Ginobili and Dwayne Wade are carving out a lot of jersey sales by simply pushing through a defender who has already claimed a space. The pioneer, of course, is the ne plus ultra of offensive fouls himself, Shaquile O'Neal, who without the blessing of the referees would never have been the dominant player of his generation.

ps I'd appreciate if you didn't give me your usual "don't-mess-with-teacher" response when I disagree with you.

First of all, great letter and great response from Cary. Tell your own truth-- I like it.

While he seems more even-handed and intelligent than many drug use critics, the letter writer makes one of the fundamental errors that almost everyone who argues against drug use does. He takes it as a given that people get nothing out of drugs. And that simply isn't the case.

I don't use any drugs anymore and haven't for a few years. But when I was younger (I'm 25 now) I smoked a lot of weed and experimented casually with many other drugs. It was never a compulsive thing, and I didn't ever base my life around them, but I did use often. (I was 20 when the Exstacy craze hit. What do you want from me?)

The question I have to ask of the letter writer is, if drugs are only negative-- if they are only pathetic and lonely-- why do so many people persist? If there is no biological drive to use them, as he claims, and there's no good to be had from using them, then why on earth would people risk so much and spend such enormous amounts to continue to use? People do get something out of drugs. It might not be a long term benefit, and it may not be the best thing for their future, but people don't do things for no reason. I think the real problem is, the letter writer can't see value in drugs for him-- and so he can't imagine value in them at all.

And drugs don't bring any happiness? Bullshit. They may also bring hardship and negative consequences and physical illness, but in many situations, for many people, drugs do bring happiness, whether fleeting or not. I will never forget the first time I took mushrooms. Some friends of mine and I ate them and went to the beach. We played in the surf and had a picnic and giggle for three straight hours. And as we watched the sunset I laid there with my friends and I said out loud, "I feel so good right now." And I did, and there was no negative consequences in my life, and I've never regretted it, and I look back on it fondly often.

Is that typical? Will everyone have similar experiences? Of course not. I'm not naive (or inexperienced) enough to think that most or many drug experiences are like this. But lots of people use drugs, lightly and recreationally, and then move on with their lives. I know so many people my age who, like me, smoked weed and used other drugs quite a lot and then moved on to being financially and socially sucessful people. (If my employer reads this, of course, I may no longer be financially sucessful.)

What bothers me most is the assumption that the letter writer and others make, that everyone who uses will eventually abuse, that people can't tell the difference between taking some acid at a concert and mainlining meth, that everyone who does a line of coke will eventually be doing ten lines, that if you take some mushrooms you'll also do heroin.... Smart, normal people do drugs all the time. Most of them, like me, get their fill and move on. The problem is, successful drug use is by definition confidential, while the meth addict who robbed the liquor store is on the front page.

I don't know much. But I'm certain that this is not in any way, shape or form an act of courage.