From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 10:06:13 GMT
Arlo,
You said
I reply: [to Platt]
Notice the "all", and excise it from your dichotomies :-)
I say, well said.
I also like the intellectual response to drugs BTW, I've been "researching"
peyote recently, for Pisrig biog reasons obviously :-) and your thread is
interesting stuff.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?
> Platt...
>
> You wrote:
> I take it you're in favor of legalizing all drugs. If not, why not?
>
> I reply:
> Notice the "all", and excise it from your dichotomies :-)
>
> Notice to the apparent division into "full legalization" or "full
> criminalization" of "all drugs".
>
> My personal feeling is that marijuana and hash should be treated like
> alcohol. Some other drugs, like hallucinogenics (peyote, acid, 'shrooms,
> etc), I could envision "resorts" that one could go to where one could
> safely partake without being a threat to others. Other drugs I can see
> being regulated as pharmaceuticals are now, by prescription and under the
> supervision of a doctor (to treat pain, for example). Not being an expert
> on all drugs, I could see that some (maybe things like crystal meth?)
> should remain remain fully restricted (but for Intellectual reasons, not
> Victorian morality or fear).
>
> Addiction is the problem, and what we should address always is to the
> underlying culture that leads to addiction (whether oxycontin, marijuana,
> alcohol, nicotine, heroin or valium). But I do believe that people,
> exercising Qualtiy decisions, can make sound choices about their lives and
> bodies, and will choose (as Pirsig states) wisely.
>
> I take it you are of the belief that people will not choose wisely, and so
> the conservatives should choose for them?
>
> > > > If it wasn't for the social cost of treating drug addicts, I'd be
all in
> > > > favor of legalizing drug use. If you want to blow your brains and
end up
> > > > a blithering idiot lying in a gutter, be my guest. Just don't come
> > > > running to me for a handout to treat your suicidal behavior.
> > >
> > > You see the insulting assumption conservatives make about what you do
if it
> > > wasn't for them "deciding what best for you"?
> >
> >An example of an Arlononsequitur.
>
> Non-sequitur? The comment was directly related to what you said. You
> clearly state that "legalizing drug use" is "blow(ing) your brains and
> end(ing) up a blithering idiot lying in a gutter". Just like Pirsig said,
> you are making some pretty arrogant assumptions about what people would do
> if conservatives did not have Victorian morality in place.
>
> Dan, take note, as you likely already have, this is the scare and fear
> conservatives use to trump up their Victorian morality. If we "legalize
> drugs" everyone would be blithering idiots lying in gutters. Don't fall
for
> it.
>
>
> > > > But that's me. Society has decided to care for all who are
distressed,
> > > > whether self-inflicted or not. In so doing, it rightfully places
certain
> > > > restrictions on behavior to reduce the direct and indirect costs of
drug
> > > > use.
> > >
> > > So we should criminalize cholesterol, nicotine, alchohol, deep-fryed
food,
> > > ... because ALL of these things have very high direct and indirect
costs on
> > > drug use.
> >
> >" . . . costs on drug use"?? Another Arlononsequitur.
>
> Sorry, the "on drug use" was an result of copying and pasting. The
sentence
> should have read: "So we should criminalize cholesterol, nicotine,
> alchohol, deep-fryed food... because ALL of these things have very high
> direct and indirect costs on society".
>
> What you avoid is that your initial support to criminalizing drugs was
that
> their effects produce a high financial cost for society to treat. If this
> is your reasoned justification, then how can you continue to support the
> legality of nicotine and/or alcohol? Both of which have a much higher
> financial cost on society to treat.
>
>
> > > > You do favor a democratic system to decide these matters don't you?
> > >
> > > The agreement of a majority is not moral justification to (1) repress
> > > Intellectual quality, or (2) repress non-threatening biological
quality.
> >
> >!) As if blowing your mind is intellectual quality, and 2) as if drugs
> >don't threaten society. (Been to a gang war lately?)
>
> I did not say it was "Intellectual quality", did I? The statement was not
> about simply drugs, but the morality of social patterns per se. What I
have
> said, and Pirsig says, is that drug use has biological quality (whether
> marijuana, nicotine, alcholol or heroin). The role of the Intellectual
> should be to examine each of these to determine the least amount of
> restrictions necessary for the preservation of society.
>
> Note too, that the resultant "laws" need not be absolute
> criminalization/legalization, but can find their place in between.
>
> Remember that Pirsig did not say that the biological quality was
> unilaterally opposed to social quality, only that it is moral for social
> patterns to repress biological pattern when they are threatened. The
> pursuit of biological quality (for a harmless example consider the eating
> of chocolate) is a completely moral activity when not threatening to
> destroy social patterns. The Victorians used fear to restrict biological
> acts they found offensive, by claiming they are "destroying society", but
> as Pirsig and many other have seen, this was not an Intellectual endeavor,
> it was replicating static social patterns of a particular religion. Pirsig
> rightly placed the Intellectual above this, and we can thus (and should)
be
> guided by Intellectual reasoning, and not the fear and doomsday lies of
the
> Victorians.
>
> > > If marijuana is a threatening biological quality, then so is nicotine.
I've
> > > never heard Platt say he favors criminalizing smoking (to reduce the
direct
> > > and indirect cost of healthcare on society).
> >
> >I've never heard smoking cigars leading to a crack cocaine addiction.
Have
> >you?
>
> Is this what Mark refers to as the Platteral shift? Your comment was about
> the high cost to society, and to this the addictiveness and health
concerns
> related to tobacco smoking are fully documented.
>
> If you are now saying that you favor drug laws because anyone who smokes a
> joint will certainly end up doing crack cocaine is simply another example
> of condescending and arrogant conservative presumptions about what people
> will do, if it weren't for good ol' conservatives to protect them from
> themselves.
>
> Pirsig partook of at least one peyote ceremony, and he did not end up a
> crack cocaine addict.
>
>
> > > Like all conservative mumbojumbo, its just random Victorian morality,
with
> > > no Intellectual justification whatsoever.
> >
> >Like all leftist rantings, it's just the morality of hippies, trippers
and
> >flower children with biological value justification -- "If it feels good,
> >do it."
>
> If biological values do not threaten social patterns, how do you use the
> MOQ to support their restriction?
>
> So far, your reasons as to how they "threaten" social patterns were (1)
> they produce a high health care cost on society, to which the response
> would easily be that you are also in favor of banning nicotine and
alcohol,
> or (2) marijuana use leads to crack cocaine addiction, to which is easily
> shown is false and is nothing more than the use of fear to persuade, not
to
> mention is an arrogant assumption about the Quality decisions people make.
>
> So, Platt, either we Intellectually ban all substances based on their real
> financial costs to society, and start with nicotine and alcohol (and
> cholesterol) as the first to go, or we profess that conservatives "know
> what's best for us" and "can protect us from ourselves".
>
> Or you can try to come up with another argument for why alcohol and
> nicotine should remain legal, and marijuana should be criminalized?
>
> Which is it?
>
> Arlo
>
> PS: Here IS a non-sequitur... if "leftists say 'if it feels good, do it',
> the righties say 'if it feels good, do it in a closet, and if you are
> busted blame the liberal media for corrupting your righteous, conservative
> values''".
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 16 2004 - 10:58:23 GMT