I've read the letter to Cary and his response several times now, because this is something that I've put a lot of thought into regarding my own experiences in my short 30 years.

It was the comment regarding scaring the bejesus out of kids that really caught my attention. See, I was never interested in drugs until I was forced to learn about them. DARE came to my school (a weak replacement for McGruff), Just Say No buttons were handed out, but best of all was a day long discussion of each illegal drug and just how horrible it was. By the end of the day, I knew which ones I wanted to try and which ones I didn't. But I never would have known about them at all if not for the scare campaign. Descriptions of the "horrors" of seeing fantastic colors and getting visions while listening to music on LSD or mushrooms intrigued me; the paranoia associated with PCP turned me off.

The writer's idea that drug use is different than sex because it doesn't stem from an instinctive behavior is just plain wrong. The human instinct is for experience, and in our culture things that are tagged as verbotin obtain a certain appeal for some people. This is why more than half the people that sign abstinence pledges have sex within the first year. Also why some people feel drawn to meth because of all the press coverage. Teenagers are smart enough to discern that there must be some upside if so many people are doing it.

In my life I've done almost all the Schedule I drugs and several others. I've got a great career and a great relationship. I'm the worst person to have speak to someone curious about drug use, because I cherish and value what I've done. It's shaped who I am, introduced me to some of the most amazing people I've ever met, and I truly feel I'm a better person for it.

At the end of the day it's a personal choice - but to characterize all drug use as 'complic[ating] things unnecessarily and ha[ving] negative consequences for the user and all the people they interact with.' is just closed-minded and ignorant.

Sad that the chain mail that made it's way in had some of the hardest-hitting things to say.

How can so many of you be so virulent? Have none of you people decrying this column ever read it before? Jesus, switch to decaf, get laid, up your dosage, do something. This is just a column about TV for f*ck's sake.

In an odd moment of synchronicity, I just watched the movie "Capturing the Friedmans" last night for the first time, and today Salon publishes an article about child pornography. For those that haven't seen the movie, it is well-thought, nuanced, and ultimately conflicted documentary about child pornography, its affects on a family, and the way the law treated the situation. It's left me unsettled on several levels and forced me to think about something that I would like to think doesn't exist. I highly recommend it.

I became a Salon subscriber based on the well-thought and nuanced articles that they used to write. It was nice to have a news outlet that looked at things from all sides, no matter how uncomfortable they might be. For Salon to pull this piece about a difficult subject, whose main goal seemed to be more about fostering further discussions rather than making a point, goes against everything the site was originally founded on. I think everyone that reads Salon deserves more than a one paragraph disclaimer. If I was interested in weak, one-sided, mainstream reporting I'd watch Fox. I want to know why the editors pulled the piece, and I want the truth.

President Truman didn't have a middle name, just the initial S. Not sure where the LW got the idea that it was Seirgey, but it's wrong.

As far as the name thing goes, I seem to recall an article in Salon during the early days of Obama's rise where the writer spent some time discussing the risks and red flags of his name. Now that he's a front-runner, and the predictable discussion of his name comes out, Salon cries foul? When he makes his first major gaffe will Salon forget all the adoration and decry him as a never-was?

Human Ton: My understanding of the reasoning behind his middle name being S is that both of his grandfathers have a name starting with S. As it was (and still is) customary to give children a grandparent's name, the S was his parents way of giving a nod to both grandfathers without showing a preference towards either one.

It's amazing what sticks with you from AP History classes over a decade ago.

"These were classic mannequin bodies, long and lean. The clothes they wore looked spectacular. I no longer felt flat-chested. I felt critically underdressed."

Products being marketed by making the consumer feel inadequate? Say it isn't so! This has only been the modus operandi of the advertising industry, since, well, its inception.

Please tell me that this was a CNN-like gaffe and somehow Self is running an article on the political and economic implications of Bush veto'ing a raise in the minimum raise.