Laugh, it's better for your health.

Do I also get to use the "it only goes against your morals" card when people talk about how government is evil, or for that matter, how stealing, enslaving, kidnapping, raping and murdering are (or are these ok too)?

Absolutely you can play that card. Those things are okay to some people.

I totally agree.

I believe there is no right or wrong answer in this case, as we are not debating if drugs should be illegal or not, we are debating whether listing drugs on the wiki is a good marketing strategy. It depends on who you are pitching to, if it's the average person then probably it is a good strategy but if it's towards govts or corporations, it will most likely deter them a little.

But the hard part is that bitcoins are fundamentaly free, open, unregulated etc, and that censorship is not compatible with the model. So censoring the wiki would go against the bitcoin ideals, but on the other hand it gives a small impression that btc are used by drug dealers and vigilantes etc.

I really don't think there is a correct answer in this case, it depends on what level you look at it from. That is my unbiased logical opinion.

Now my personal emotional opinion: I think some drugs could be listed especially those that are beneficial to our bodies (medicines etc) and also some that are more psychoactive, that I believe actually help us understand things better, but NOT cr*ck or crystalm*th...
 

Pure and simple? Can't argue with that. That's some serious air tight logic.
It implies nothing. It is simply a finger, pointing in the direction of a product. A product nobody is forcing anybody to buy.

The only people who don't like drugs, are people who have never tried any form of the freeing release that many illegal drugs give. 

Interesting.

OMFG! So what?

If this one guy on another forum doesn't want to use bitcoin because a wiki points in the direction of something he doesn't like, he's a fool. And when he realises that he missed the boat because his tiny puritan mind failed to accept that other people like the things he doesn't like, I hope he cries himself to sleep.

You never miss an opportunity to call libertarians immature, do you?

If what you say is justification for banning links to drugs, then it also justification for banning links to porn, alcohol, religious objects, and just about anything else.

I guess Alexander Shulgin is an immature teenager, despite being a PHD holding biochemist and the inventor (and first person to take!) hundreds of psychedelic drugs through out his life. I guess his entire crowd of friends who took drugs and wrote trip reports with him, you know intellectuals from academia backgrounds, are also all drug using teenagers.