From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 04:28:27 GMT
Greetings Platt, Dan...
I had said:
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).
Platt then asked:
So, you know what's best for others? :-)
I reply:
No, I don't, but I would imagine a doctor should be able to make this decision
based on context and involvement, the same way they can legally administer
morphine. From what I do know about certain drugs I can see a reasoned argument
declaring some beneficial under medical supervision. It is a hypothetical level
of "restriction" some drugs, based on reason and not fear, may be best dealt
with this way.
My point, as I am beginning to think you deliberately obfuscate :-), is that the
Intellectual response to social patterns is not to destroy them in favor of the
biological patterns, as you claim those darn hippies want to do, but to reason
logically over each particular biological level pattern and decide, based on
logic and reason, appropriate levels for social restrictions of these
biological patterns.
As it stands now, it is most certainly not "Intellectual". It is static
Victorian social morality. Hence, I can walk down the steet in Germany (or any
other European or South American country) while drinking a bottle of beer, but
in *America* I am violating Victorian sensibilities, and am thus committing a
crime.
To switch to alcohol, in order to make the point, Intellectually we can see that
there is no harm to societal patterns by allowing citizens to enjoy a beer in
public. But conservatives holler that it will destroy society as we know it,
and use fear to convince people that allowing citizens to stroll down the
street and drink a bottle of lager will turn us into a nation of hobos and
drunkards. Fear, fear, fear.
I had written:
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).
Platt asked:
What "intellectual reasons" for the restrictions?
I reply:
Without being an expert on everything that's out there, as I said, I couldn't
tell you. There may be some that pose valid social threats, and for them,
Intellectually, I could see restrictions. One hypothetical I was thinking about
was drugs that would result in birth defects even after a period of non-use.
I had written:
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).
Platt asked:
What "underlying culture?"
I reply:
Consumerism that fosters addictive behavior. Poverty that fosters hopelessness.
Let's take this to another thread though, or back to the Capitalism thread,
agreed?
I had said:
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.
Platt asked:
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 reply:
*Most* people choose wisely, not some. As for social security privitization,
there are more issues involved, but I'll give you my short response.
Understanding investment strategies requires complex knowledge of markets. And
it requires the ability to suffer loss (it is "risk" capital, after all). For
those with the ability and the means, I say go for it. If you are saavy enough,
and feel you are able to withstand the risk, you should certainly be able to
invest privately as you choose. For others, who do not feel they have the
investment saavy, nor are willing to take the risk, society is morally
justified in providing a safety net. There is only one caveat I'd make to this,
and that is: if you opt out and FAIL, you are not entitled to the social
security at all. Period.
How's that?
I wrote:
I take it you are of the belief that people will not choose wisely, and so
the conservatives should choose for them?
Platt responded:
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.
I respond:
I am pleased with your personal beliefs on this, Platt, but a little dismayed
that a supporter of the MOQ would justify "morality" on a "majority decision".
Doesn't that place the social level above the Intellectual?
And again with the "blow your brains". You are really into that whole
anti-hippie thing, aren't you? :-)
I had written:
You see the insulting assumption conservatives make about what you do
if it wasn't for them "deciding what best for you"?
You replied:
An example of an Arlononsequitur.
Then I responded:
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.
You responded further:
Please excise "all" and "everyone" from your dichotomies. :-)
I reply:
Fair enough. "If we legalize drugs, Dan will be a blithering idiot in the
gutter". I suppose it was Dan's ability to make quality decisions you were
referring to?
I had written:
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.
Platt wrote:
" . . . costs on drug use"?? Another Arlononsequitur.
I clarified:
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".
Platt wrote:
Many leftists (not all) are proposing just such. Didn't some hospital just today
demand that McDonalds be removed from the premises?
I reply:
Just like some rightists are demanding that our Hooters be shut down. If I
haven't convinced you yet that your party is just as guilty as the left in
seeking to impose "what's right" on others, no one can. ;-)
On to cholesterol... not criminalized, of course not, but we need to keep an
educational message out there to counter the advertising. American eating
habits are improving, slowly but we're getting there.
As to McD's in a hospital, well... I can see where it would be like putting in a
tavern- unhealthy food at a place of healing? Who disputes the McDs food is
unhealthy? I think the hospital is exercising good judgement. If there was a
McDs "next door" to the hospital, then the hospital would just have to live
with it (unlike the people who eat that crap).
I had asked:
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 responded:
I don't support criminalizing drugs.
I reply:
Well, I did not see this in your posts, so okay.
I had said:
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.
Platt responded:
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.
I reply:
Yes they do, and we call them "liberals". ;-)
I had written:
Pirsig partook of at least one peyote ceremony, and he did not end up a
crack cocaine addict.
Platt replied:
So you admit some drug takers do end up as addicts?
I respond:
Why do you imply this is some sort of revelation? Certainly some do end up as
addicts, as they do with nicotine and alcohol. The solution is to work with
education, and work to reduce whatever context has fostered the addictive
behavior. We'll never end all addiction, but we should not prohibit my ability
to walk down the street and drink a beer because of it.
I wrote:
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.
Platt responded:
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. :-)
I respond:
And again, the will of the majority does not make something "moral", only
"legal". I am not arguing the drugs are illegal, only that according to the
MOQ, many of these restrictions are immoral.
"ALL decisions are not Quality decisions"?... My gut instinct is saying, yes, on
some all levels all our decisions are a response to quality. How could they not
be? This question got me though, I'm not sure... hmmm....
Platt wrote:
I'll await your "intellectual reasons" for restricting crystal meth for
guidance.
"Crytal meth" was a hypothetical example. Whether it in actually should be
restricted, and to what level of restriction, I do not have the necessary
information to say.
Of course, with many of these drugs, like we do with alcohol, we should
criminalize certain behaviors while under the influence. DUI should certainly
be illegal, for Intellectual reasoning does tell us that this behavior poses a
threat to the social fabric (by threatening the lives of others, creating
unsafe conditions for others, etc.) (You and Dan already mentioned this, I am
just clarifying my position).
I had said:
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''".
You responded:
That's an Arlononsequitur alright.What were you smoking when you wrote that?
:-)
I repsond:
Afraid beer and wine, and an occasional Akvavit (Bommerlunder!) or
Jaegermeister, is about as strong as it gets for me. As for smoking, I prefer
the clean air.
Arlo
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 - 04:31:44 GMT