Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 21:56:04 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?"


    > 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 :-)

    > 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).

    So, you know what's best for others? :-)

    >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).

    What "intellectual reasons" for the restrictions?
    > 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).

    What "underlying culture?"

    > 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.

    So, some people (not all I presume) can overcome negative cultural
    influences (whatever you say those may be) and choose wisely? If so, can I
    assume you have no objections to privatizing social security?.
    > I take it you are of the belief that people will not choose wisely, and so
    > the conservatives should choose for them?

    No. As I stated, I personally am in favor of legalizing drugs. But, the
    majority of people (not all) through their elected representatives have
    decided against what I want, citing the social costs involved. As far as
    I'm concerned, if you want to blow your brains, go right ahead.

    > > > 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.

    Please excise "all" and "everyone" from your dichotomies. :-)
    > > > 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".

    Many leftists (not all) are proposing just such. Didn't some hospital just
    today demand that McDonalds be removed from the premises?

    >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.

    I don't support criminalizing drugs.
    > > > > 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.

    I agree with all that except the bit about "doomsday lies" Some (not all)
    drug takers in fact blow their brains out, both metaphorically and
    literally. Some people care about what happens to others.

    > Pirsig partook of at least one peyote ceremony, and he did not end up a
    > crack cocaine addict.

    So you admit some drug takers do end up as addicts?

    > >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?

    I don't.

    > 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.

    My reasons are that society has decided through democratic means to
    restrict drug use because of costs to society (health costs, poor job
    performance, threat to others, etc) and that marijuana use is usually the
    first step towards cocaine addiction, as documented many times. As for
    "Quality decisions," I assume you mean that ALL decisions aren't Quality
    decisions. :-)

    > 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?

    I'll await your "intellectual reasons" for restricting crystal meth for
    > 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''".

    That's an Arlononsequitur alright.What were you smoking when you wrote
    that? :-)


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 21:54:35 GMT