XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: repro007@hotmail.com   
      
   Dan Day wrote:   
   > "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]   
   >   
   It is human nature to seek pleasure, drugs are just one part of that. If you   
   think they should be outlawed then outlaw them all, outlaw *all* drugs.   
   That'll expose the stupitidy of the current nonsense and the hypocrisy of   
   those who support it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)