XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy
From: hb_raz@NOSPAMhotmail.com
"cybrwurm" wrote in message
news:100c4uv69iov93c@corp.supernews.com...
> +
> > On Jan8 Scott Miller replied: The main problem with legalizing
> > pot, or any other recreational illegal drug is: that once its
> > legalized, if it does turn out to be a mistake, society will
> > have a hell of a time making it illegal again.
> .
> da wurm sayeth: There will be no need to make it illegal again,
> Scott. A society of free citizens is *infinitely* better than
> a society of slaves living in fear. Liberty is not a mistake.
> Sanity is not a mistake. Living under paranoia created by lies
> and illusions is a mistake.
Major P: Liberty is better than slavery.
Minor P: Slavery comes from the illusion of smoking pot.
Conclusion: Liberty is increased by smoking pot.
Please. Your deduction of this issue (above) is pathetic. The syllogism that
I can only see from your description is completely illogical and broken. All
you are doing in this is throwing out terms in hopes to justify your
position via argumention from popular opinion. There *doesn't* justify that
pot-smoking is good. Furthermore, your argument is misplaced. A society
*has* the right the denounce what it wishes. A government is where you're
trying to attack, and your idea that society is equal to the government is
only another illusion of society that is being upheld (hypocracy again).
> Wasting billions of dollars fighting
> a "war" that is a lose-lose situation for everyone is a mistake.
A "lose-lose" situation? What is the alternative side (hence, the second
"lose")?
> .
> > (Look at how badly prohibition worked).
> .
> >> Mike Helm answered: Look how badly it's "working" right now.
> .
> Pot-prohibition benefits no one, other than the few big-time
> dealers.
So you wouldn't say it benefits people by alerting them of a substance that
could potentially alter their lives drastically? The prohibition alerts
people to an issue, and it doesn't just solely make it disappear.
> The truth is that the cost of maintaining the illusion
> that pot is mind-destroying, life-threatening, and will surely
> destroy society if it is ever legalized, is just too damn high
> to justify.
Sure, however that is the *government's* conclusion on what pot will do.
Attacking that extreme conclusion doesn't make your side right. However, the
real conclusion (that it is mind-altering and health-hindering with
potential future-impact) has the proof to stand.
> .
> Now it's true that there may be an increase in pot use (and
> abuse) when legalization kicks in, but once the novelty wears
> off, consumption will decrease and level off, and the number of
> regular users will thereafter remain a fairly stable minority.
Boy, you have such a narrow idea of the future. Legalization could lead to
not only higher use (not drastically higher, though), but it could lead to
altering the contents of the drug or to other, adverse problems that could
come with legalization.
> Society will not break down, or fall apart, and people will not
> lose their will to do something constructive with their lives.
> All such fears are groundless in the extreme.
But things *will* change. Since you are not psychic, you cannot make such
broad gaurantees. Of course, society most likely wouldn't break down, but
society could change for the worse.
> .
> > So if you want to make pot legal, you better be pretty damn
> > sure it is not going to have a lot of social and health
> > costs associated with it.
> .
> Well it's funny you should mention that, because I recall that
> there was a study done many years ago. They took a group of
> alcoholics, and tried to cure them by giving them mescaline. It
> was an inspired idea, but the results were mixed. Some of the
> alkies were cured, and some made slight improvements, while
> others were not affected one way or the other. These results
> don't surprise me at all because there are as many causes of
> alcoholism and drug addiction as there are alkies and addicts!
> .
> Nevertheless, I find this experiment very encouraging in its
> implications for pot-legalization. One could easily forecast
> that one of the results of legalization would be a dramatic
> decrease in the rate of alcoholism as people switch from booze
> to pot. The net result (perhaps up to 50% less alcoholism)
> would be a tremendous benefit to society in general; a boon
> that is quite literally priceless.
So you pot-smokers must justify your cause by saying it will reduce other
problems in society? What weak-guts you have. Prove the use in itself and
don't try to throw it off bruden of proof you have. Arguing from a popular
opinion (or popular feeling in this case) won't get you anywhere.
[Snip American economy]
Total BS. Read a book in capitalistic economics. The value of the dollar
will settle to a certain value *with or without* government action in
non-economic factors. There is no proof that the economy will be better if
the prohibition is removed since that is completely opposed to capitalistic
theory.
> .
> > Also, the fact that alcohol is readily available does,
> > I think, have something to do with it being the most
> > dangerous abused drug in the world.
> .
> >> Mike Helm answered: I'm sure it has something to do with it,
> >> but I believe there are other factors one of which is that it
> >> is a very abusable, addictive and dangerous drug to begin with.
> .
> Very true. On the other hand, people can become addicted to
> anything really if they want it bad enough. I myself like to
> make a clear distinction between the kind of physical addiction
> associated with alcohol and heroin, and the more psychological
> dependence associated with pot, coffee, Oprah, rap-music, the
> soaps, and anything else that you could slot into this category.
> It is human nature to be habitual about things. That's just the
> way that human beings are built.
> .
Is it really human nature or just nature of those who allow themselves to
become addicted?
[snip]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
