Heh.
FWIW, I would define ethics as the study of how one's actions affect others and what sorts of effects on others one should or should not want to have. I define morality as an explicit code or list of rules that attempts to put some abstract ethical idea into concrete practice. By those definitions, Teo's list falls under the category of morality, since it's just a list of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" with no explanation for most of them of what ethical reasons led him to adopt that rule. The only one in his OP that seems coherent from either perspective to me is his stance on drugs for pregnant women, since he pretty clearly explains the ethical purpose for that guideline (to protect the infant from material harm), although his dogmatism about things like pot for morning sickness, which is not known to cause any specific birth defect or health problem, causes me to wonder how sincere or at least coherently thought out even that ethical stance truly is.
Since I'm getting sucked back into this awful thread anyway, I'm gonna indulge my own narcissism now and go "line by line" on Teo's list. I'll try to keep it nice-ish. Using ""s instead of quote tags cuz I'm lazy and there are a bunch of them.
"Blatant public intoxication is unacceptable." - The sentiment here isn't so bad, assuming 'blatant' means 'obnoxious or disruptive' and not simply 'obvious to those paying attention and trying to "catch" you'. There's nothing inherently wrong with public intoxication, just with obnoxious or disruptive behavior in public - whether intoxicated or not, really. Anyway, if you take out the moralising talk about it being "unacceptable" and change it to a personal guideline of "avoid unnecessary public intoxication and be conscious of others who might not want anything to do with your drug use or the crazy things that drug use makes you say and do sometimes" I'd have no qualms.
"Driving, operating machinery or performing other possibly dangerous acts while intoxicated is unacceptable." - agreed. Nothing more to say here, unless 'possibly dangerous acts' is extended to things like taking a walk in the park or posting silly shit on the internet
"Cultivate, propagate and disseminate as many entheogenic ethnobotanicals as possible!" - Um, what? No. By the way, this blatantly contradicts a lot of your other 'rules' and is also pretty clearly against the forum rules. Don't advise people to do illegal or potentially illegal things. Even most 'legal entheogens' in the US become very much illegal when distributed with intent to consume or knowledge of the other party's intent to consume. It's kind of ridiculous that you throw this Timothy Leary drug evangelism crap in the middle of your attempt to define rules for responsible drug use.
"The period of gestation for a human baby is one of the most important times in a mother and child’s life. No psychoactive, entheogens or drugs of any sort should be taken at this time, and the mother should only consume whole food and drink." - drugs that actually have any harmful effect on fetal development, 100% agreed. Only "whole food" (what, no smoothies?) and drink, whatever the hell that means, is dogmatic and stupid. An individual choosing to adopt this guideline isn't stupid at all, but representing it as a rule that you expect others to follow because you say so, let alone as at all an ethical or moral rather than personal health decision, is pretty stupid.
"Children under 17 shall not ingest psychoactives of any form. Including sugar, caffeine and any and all psychoactives, drugs, chemicals, substances and/or compounds, they shall only eat wholesome food and nothing but pure water ." - Oh, for fuck's sake. You've completely lost track of any distinction between personal health decisions and "society and morals concerning psychoactives" here, clearly. What the FUCK does drinking only pure water have to do with moral standards of how society should approach drug use? Are you now telling me that children drinking milk or fruit juice is immoral? You're delusional
"Dosing another human with a drug, chemical or psychoactive without their knowledge and consent is considered a form of assault and is completely unacceptable." - agreed. The right to ingest psychoactives also includes the right not to. Assault sounds like a pretty good term, really - it's an unwelcome physical intrusion on the body.
"All forms of habitual use of ANY drug is considered addiction and damaging to the user, no psychoactive should ever be used daily." - considered addiction and damaging to the user by you, maybe. Quit trying to make my decisions for me and quit telling me I'm damaged or immoral because I've made different personal choices. In other words: fuck you too, then, I'll smoke my pot and drink my caffeine as much as I damn well please. Addiction is not inherently damaging or evil; it's a physiological process and one you clearly don't understand very well.
"Women should NEVER use ANY substances when pregnant and/or lactating or breast feeding, they shall eat only wholesome organic food and drink. Couples (both the male and the female) should not use any substances while trying to conceive a child." - again, more of your personal beliefs and health decisions being forced onto others as some sort of moral imperative. Drugs that affect the fetus negatively are one thing, and I think the above 'assault rule' more or less covers that too as a fetus clearly can't consent to drug use, but there are plenty of psychoactives and... non-organic sourced foods.... that are perfectly healthy for the fetus. You've managed to offend me on an even deeper political level now by mixing your authoritarian views on drug use with limits on reproductive autonomy. There are very few things that make me bust out the Godwin comparisons completely seriously. Males telling me all the ways females should be controlled and coerced while pregnant, not for any specific reason but for "the good of society" or in the name of some twisted "morality" is definitely up there on the list. Have I called you a fascist recently? Fascist.
"Habitual use of ANY substance is considered negative and unhealthy, all psychoactives should be used in moderation. Daily use of any drug is unacceptable." - again, unacceptable to YOU maybe. Fuck off and quit telling me all the ways my personal decisions are unacceptable to you. Get over yourself, get some psychotherapy for your blatant crippling pathologies, just... Quit this bullshit.
"Do not ingest intoxicating substances during the daytime, only become inebriated at night. Stimulants are acceptable to use in the morning and during daylight hours, but other forms of psychoactives are not; however, this excludes entheogens, which are to used infrequently, whenever the time is right." - this is among the dumbest things I've ever seen you write. I am at a loss for words how to begin explaining how stupid and not at all relevant to morality or ethics this "rule" is. Also, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENTHEOGENS AND PSYCHOACTIVES. Entheogens are just psychoactives that you consider valuable. There's no universal agreement on which ones those are, which you would know if you ever actually listened to anything people here tell you when you ramble like this about your own ignorant prejudices.
"Do NOT ingest multiple psychoactives at once. Do not mix drugs, this can cause dangerous interactions. " - Wait, maybe I spoke too soon. This might be even dumber, especially from one of BL's biggest recent advocates of ayahuasca. Again, your infantile understanding of harms reduction shines through: give useless and nonsensical advice categorically denying the safety of any drug combinations instead of actually researching the relative safety of specific combos before choosing to ingest them.