I still didn't dare to click the link but why even do the sidesplit between those preconceptions and stuff like:
Hard drugs are likely to cause the demise of the state. If they are legalised, they will engender a state sponsored psychosis. If they are criminalised the state will collapse domestically through rampant crime and police corruption. Crime because addicts associate their high with crime, so crime as good, it's a rare criminal who isn't a drug addict. Corruption because police are reluctant to enforce (political) drug laws, developing a sympathy with the criminal, and so being more prone to overlook other crimes. Either way the end is near.
You don't give off the impression to have any clear agenda, but if you were novel, it's like the questions have been replaced by an allmost random collection of strong opinions that would like to represent an internally coherent worldview but don't quite get there.
Now I do wonder what our Tay would be had it been trained by all the threads he opened. Quick: what objects do we steal from the past again?
Those receptors, they're basically little more than geometric shapes that happen to fit together. That they would cause such dramatic effects is kind of mystefying (oh what an orthographical nightmare is this word, how did I get it right with that attempt) but ultimately bears no deeper meaning, not on it's own without throwing the ole flesh languagemodel at it. We just get to mess with our brains, kinda like injecting custom payloads. Your problem if you void the warranty.