Most laws anywhere around the world do not represent what most people consider appropriate. Laws anywhere represent what is considered appropriate in accordance to an antiquated body of thought, such as a religion. Most people, especially young people, experience laws only as a traditional set of repressive rules.

Most young people, and many older ones, cannot even imagine, or dare not imagine, a world in which they were free to do what they want, as long as the involvement of other people is consensual.

The use of recreational drugs other than alcohol is highly illegal in the US, even though it doesn't involve other people at all. In the US, which likes to call itself the "land of the free", a grown up citizen isn't even free to do with his own body as he likes. While some people may need guidance, there is no point in criminalizing the wish of a person nearing the end of his life to have opiates provide an amount of pleasure that would otherwise not be attainable.

Under many circumstances, grown up men and women are also not allowed to have a consensual sexual relationship. Prostitution, for example, is illegal in many parts of the US. Punishment includes rude treatment by the police, jail sentences, and the confiscation of property.

Like most people in most countries, I would welcome a far-reaching legal reform.

The first principle of a new, enlightened legal system would have to be that where there is no complaint from a victim, the state has no right to play judge. The only exceptions would be cases in which victims have died or were incapacitated.

The second new principle of justice would be that if a court has determined the guilt of a perpetrator of a crime, the victim and the perpetrator should be allowed to work out an adequate compensation. Only if the victim and the perpetrator do not reach a solution in this way, then the state shall met out a punishment.

No, the option of an agreement between the victim and the perpetrator will not result in leniency towards rich people. They may stand to lose a large part of their possessions if they do not want to go to jail. And a poor person who receives a very large compensation for having been hurt by a rich perpetrator will be served better redress than a 5-year prison sentence for the perpetrator would mean.

Most laws anywhere around the world do not represent what most people consider appropriate. Laws anywhere represent what is considered appropriate in accordance to an antiquated body of thought, such as a religion. Most people, especially young people, experience laws only as a traditional set of repressive rules.

Most young people, and many older ones, cannot even imagine, or dare not imagine, a world in which they were free to do what they want, as long as the involvement of other people is consensual.

The use of recreational drugs other than alcohol is highly illegal in the US, even though it doesn't involve other people at all. In the US, which likes to call itself the "land of the free", a grown up citizen isn't even free to do with his own body as he likes. While some people may need guidance, there is no point in criminalizing the wish of a person nearing the end of his life to have opiates provide an amount of pleasure that would otherwise not be attainable.

Under many circumstances, grown up men and women are also not allowed to have a consensual sexual relationship. Prostitution, for example, is illegal in many parts of the US. Punishment includes rude treatment by the police, jail sentences, and the confiscation of property.

Like most people in most countries, I would welcome a far-reaching legal reform.

The first principle of a new, enlightened legal system would have to be that where there is no complaint from a victim, the state has no right to play judge. The only exceptions would be cases in which victims have died or were incapacitated.

The second new principle of justice would be that if a court has determined the guilt of a perpetrator of a crime, the victim and the perpetrator should be allowed to work out an adequate compensation. Only if the victim and the perpetrator do not reach a solution in this way, then the state shall met out a punishment.

No, the option of an agreement between the victim and the perpetrator will not result in leniency towards rich people. They may stand to lose a large part of their possessions if they do not want to go to jail. And a poor person who receives a very large compensation for having been hurt by a rich perpetrator will be served better redress than a 5-year prison sentence for the perpetrator would mean.

I myself am not a consumer of illicit drugs. Because I still have another, better option. Optimal sexual experience.

But while I am not currently a consumer of illicit drugs, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't be a consumer of drugs. And I'm not talking drugs against headache, the flu, or constipation. I am talking drugs that enhance the pleasure one can get out of life.

My expertise as a shaman is narrow, but deep. It covers only one condition. I have no knowledge on what herbs to use in the treatment of heartburn or for the recovery from a heart attack. But I have tried virtually everything that has a reputation to improve sexual parameters.

I do not believe that my sexual function is worse than that of the average man above 50. It's just that I am philosophically so focused on sexuality that a level of sexual function that is worse than what I enjoyed in my 20s is simply not acceptable to me.

Unfortunately, many more herbs have a reputation to aid in sexual function than actually have an effect. And some of the herbs that do have a clear effect, such as yohimbe, have an awkward side effect profile. Yohimbe certainly aids erections, but it's too heavy on the heart to be a comfortable choice.

Prescription drugs also have their downsides. Sure, Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis all work well to engineer erections. So does alprostadil cream. But the erections caused by each of these medications are cold. The above three do not increase sexual pleasure. I had episodes on Viagra when I just stopped in the middle of intercourse because I was bored with the whole exercise. I had an (Viagra-aided) erection all right, but totally lacked excitement.

Dopaminergics can help with sexual excitement, but for most of them, the window of opportunity isn't very wide, and one has to know what to expect.

Many dopaminergics, including sublingual apomorphine (Uprima) have a tendency to make you feel unwell. A slight nausea sets in when dopaminergics become effective, and one desires to lie down (even without a sexual partner). For many people, including me, the slight nausea is accompanied with sleepiness. Sleepiness, of course, is, in men, often accompanied by erectile ease. So, combining apomorphine (or ropinirole, or pramipexole) with a phosphodiesterase inhibitor like sildenafil will certainly produce a nice erection, and sexual excitement (in spite of the accompanying nausea) if one gets the timing right. This means, one has to start to engage in sexual intercourse at the time the dopaminergic kicks in (when the slight nausea first appears). If one misses this point, and falls asleep, even just for 15 minutes, the opportunity for sexual enhancement has passed and the combination of a dopaminergic and a phosphodiesterase inhibitor is likely even worse than just taking the phosphodiesterase inhibitor alone.

My best bet is still a combination of a cheap phosphodiesterase inhibitor (Indian Viagra) with an extract of tongkat ali, the Malaysian/Indonesian aphrodisiac.