[Agrisalia]

i'm trying to understand your point here. are you saying that all people without any money are harmful to people who do have money.

that is how i had read it. towards the end it also sounded like all who have no money are criminals.

i dont think thats what was meant, but i couldnt really discern what was meant so didnt respond.

we are all equals, money does not define who we are. i have wealthy relatives - well wealthy in my perspective - and they are very self service. the less money someone has to their name, the more open and free they are, and some only have trouble showing trust because they have been hurt alot in the past by who? those with money.

as to those who do "drugs", if we are truly a free society, where we are free to make our own choices, including what we do to our own bodies - the only thing that makes it a crime is that others imposing their will on everyone else deem it so. i dont advocate its use, i do advocate freedom of choice.

so when its deemed against the law in such a manner, i refer to sir thomas moore:

""if you do not find a remedy to these evils, it is vain thing to boast of your severity in punishing theft, which though it may have the appearance of justice, yet in itself is neither just nor convenient. for if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?" -- sir thomas moore from utopia"

i think however what conundrum is trying to say is that money and social classes are a racial discrimination in of itself, and until we break past those barriers, we cannot commune with each other on equal and harmonious levels.