Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 05:12:59 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD terrorist blackmail"

    Hi Dan,

    Hope you caught Chin's post about "the eyes of a child". :-)

    Although I think you were being too modest... your youth seems to be no
    hinderence to you at all.

    Dan asks:
    Well, why do some countries have more liberal restrictions and seem to live
    alright??? In other words, why do Europeans give their children a glass of
    wine for dinner yet in the US we have to be 21? What are they doing that we
    aren't? Is it that we sensationalize things to support profits, or as Arlo
    mentioned, put the fear into public information and then claim, "The USG will
    make it better by placing laws and restrictions and allowing only selected
    companies to sell ...(drugs)? All the while the politicians line their pockets
    from lobbyists.

    I reply:
    The answer to the first part is simply that Americal morality is not a product
    of Intellect, it is a product of Victorian morality. The current elections
    reified this, and Victorian morality, and its use of fear to justify itself, is
    coming back stronger each day. But, you are wise to question the ulterior
    motives of conservatives and business interests who profit of the continued
    illegality of a substance. Many, many times you will see that those that profit
    of something being illegal will spand millions upon millions to lobby for that
    something to remain illegal.

    The entire history of marijuana legislation is an odd blend of anti-hispanic
    rascism and woodpulp-to-paper financial intersts in this company. The paper
    giants, having invested huge amounts of money in machines to produce paper out
    of woodpulp realized that hemp produced a cheaper and more efficient paper than
    wood. Unlike Platt's dreamed up model where business would adapt, these paper
    interests (i think dupont was one, but i'd have to go and look) sunk millions
    into anti-marijuana legislation proposed by a rascist California governor
    (maybe a senator, its been a while since I've looked).

    The Dupont's made a fortune off papermills, and we get a guy with glaucoma who
    is tossed in jail if he grows some pot to ease his pain.

    Dan asked:
    I'll ask you - What is so wrong with marijuana that it has to be made illegal?
    Besides the fact that the USG cannot make profits from it because anyone can
    grow it.

    I say:
    Nothing that I can think of.

    Dan asks:
    And alcohol doesn't contribute to bad patterns and other drugs too?!?! The
    first thing I ever did was divulge in beer.

    I say:
    Careful, you are asking questions based on Intellectual observation and not on
    blindly reifying static social patterns. :-)

    Dan answers Platt:
    I think what Arlo was talking about is the cost to consumers for prescription
    drugs (too). Especially after the latest scandal involving Viaox. What a sham
    that is. Makes me wonder how many more drugs that should have never been
    approved are on the market - for the sole reason to make money!. In addition,
    how much money from drug manufactures go to political campaigns?

    Dan states:
    I am not against making money. But when the facts are skewed or the
    information presented is meant to cause fear if you don't buy this certain
    product then, YES, I am against making money off of fear tactics. When it comes
    to campaign contributions I believe that a company, billionaire, the
    blue-collar worker, etc should sponsor their candidate because they believe in
    the candidates' direction. I do not think these entities should sponsor a
    candidate because, once they do that candidate will owe them something -
    which could reflect negatively on DQ or human rights and which is a conflict
    of public interest. As a public official you represent THE PEOPLE...NOT
    yourself! And when you give in to lobbyists then what am I, the average
    citizen, supposed to think? That Enron's slap on the wrist that cost millions
    is OK because my president says it is?

    I say:
    Dan, you should definately move this question over to the Capitalism thread.
    Only because I am not sure if Sam or Mark are reading this thread, and you'll
    benefit greatly from their dialogue. I've been meaning to finalize a post to
    that thread for a while. Maybe this is a good place to jump...

    Dan says:
    What I was trying to get at is that, NO, we don't teach gang members to be gang
    members. But if anyone tells me that the prevalence of drugs in poorer
    neighborhoods is "by chance" and the "more fortunate" have nothing to do with
    it then someone is on something...and it ain't me!!!The USA has become, and has
    actually always been, a very judgmental country. You can do it your own way in long as it's done how I say!!! I see Christians, Politicians,
    and all kinds not give a second to talk to a black man in the ghetto. We (the
    "more fortunate") label them criminals, thieves, drug addicts, etc...and
    preach that we are the most humanitarian nation in the world. Yet, we stay
    away from "that part of town" because of "those kinds of people". Yet, what if
    you talked with one of "those people" and discovered they were highly
    intellectual? What if they were just people that have always been faced with
    low Quality Static Patterns? And please don't give the "everyone has a chance"

    I say:
    Dead on, Dan (or "spot on", as the British say). But Platt is a social
    darwinist. He'll tell you that the poor are poor because they are lazy, and
    that they should just move somewhere and get a job.

    Platt wrote:
    But, IMHO druggies don't contribute much to evolution, unless you consider rock
    a contribution.

    Dan says:
    I am not a druggie. Very rarely do I even drink a beer. Have I done all of
    that? Yes, back in the day. Nothing more than pot and beer but, nonetheless, I
    have enjoyed more than my share!

    And YES, I consider rock music a HUGE contribution!!!

    I reply:
    Platt should spend more time reading about the "habits" of the artists (musical
    or artefact) he admires. Not only rock musicians and hippie artists used drugs.
    What about Munch? Hemingway? Wilde? Kafka? Berlioz? Lewis Carroll? Dali?
    Charles Dickens? Picasso? Van Gogh? Oh I could go one for a while.

    Not much of a contribution, riiiight....

    As for rock, I too consider it to be great contribution. And jazz too. And the
    blues (if you are ever in Chicago, go to the Kingston Mines!). But Platt is
    stuck back in the Victorian outrage at Elvis shaking his hips!


    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 : Thu Dec 16 2004 - 05:25:35 GMT