Actually there is a reason why I am saying this. Recently Jakarta pick a new governor. So for years the people have bitch about high corruption in Indonesia. One day we have a governor that clean up corruption. We saw results. People don't park anywhere. Government officials do not demand bribes anymore. Yet, religious leaders are condemning this guy because he is kafr (non muslims). Ahok was charged with blasphemy due to some rubber laws. After months of negative campaign, finally Jakarta pick another candidate as governor. Mainly because the other candidates are muslim. To me, that is a stupid decision. Why reject a guy that works well over guys that can only promise bullshit. Many people think, and I agree, that people do not like Ahok because he is "too good" at eliminating corruption. Of course, all of the politicians wants to get rid Ahok. So? Many Indonesians hate chinese and christians. Now they have a christian chinese governor that governed well. Ahok approval rating is 70%. They still didn't pick him. After the elections, some muslims say in forum that it shows that chinese are still not accepted in Indonesia. So they better beware and kowtow to muslims. Well, to be honest, Ahok only lost by 10% margin actually. Another muslims say that they are obligated by their religions to pick a muslim leader. I don't know whether muslim religions really encourage people to pick muslim leaders. The ulamas are in disagreements. But in any case, those people pick the wrong candidates because of their religions. We will soon see far more corruptions. Another muslims says that it is their "humans right" to pick candidates based on religions. And I sort of agree. After all, it's democracy. We can't tell people not to vote because of this or not. Basically we can encourage people to be more meritocratic but this is just another sample of "persuasion" that may or may not work. My question is, if someone, because of religions, have humans right, to pick whatever governor they choose, and those choices affect so many people. Why can't the same be applied to drugs? Most drugs user hurt no one and most hurt at most themselves. Not because someone smoke ganja means you get high too. Yes, drug usage may, or may not, increase crime and that may affect others. However, it's another story. The same things also apply to religions. Being religious can make someone terrorists. So like narcotics, religions make people think differently, in ways that's not normally realistic. They're not counting on what we normally see. They're counting on some imagination and stories of others. Those stories and imagination may actually be real or have some real aspects. But so are those imagination that drug users see. So how come it's humans' right to be religious and yet it's not human's right to use drugs? Why is it humans' right to vote, an act where we can force others to do things they don't like. Yet it's not humans' right to simply use most safe drugs? And I think the answer is majority/minority. There are too many religious people and too few drug users. So here it is. I am advocating people to try some safe drugs. At least the legal ones. Fucking try. Now see what happens when drug users are majority. Oh ya, there is another benefit of using drugs instead of being religious. In religions you have faith on what prophets supposedly "see". Why believe in what others see? Why not see things yourself? At least the latter is less likely to lie.