Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?

From: Ian Glendinning (
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 10:06:13 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Code of Art - Levels"


    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.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Arlo Bensinger" <>
    To: <>
    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
    > it.
    > > > > But that's me. Society has decided to care for all who are
    > > > > whether self-inflicted or not. In so doing, it rightfully places
    > > > > restrictions on behavior to reduce the direct and indirect costs of
    > > > > use.
    > > >
    > > > So we should criminalize cholesterol, nicotine, alchohol, deep-fryed
    > > > ... 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
    > 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
    > 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
    > >
    > >!) 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
    > 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)
    > guided by Intellectual reasoning, and not the fear and doomsday lies of
    > Victorians.
    > > > If marijuana is a threatening biological quality, then so is nicotine.
    > > > never heard Platt say he favors criminalizing smoking (to reduce the
    > > > and indirect cost of healthcare on society).
    > >
    > >I've never heard smoking cigars leading to a crack cocaine addiction.
    > >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
    > 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,
    > > > no Intellectual justification whatsoever.
    > >
    > >Like all leftist rantings, it's just the morality of hippies, trippers
    > >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
    > 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
    > 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 -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    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 - 10:58:23 GMT