From: RycheWorld@aol.com
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 00:07:13 GMT
Arlo,
I agree with your thinking here. Nicotine should be illegal as it is a
proven killer. What I cannot grasp is the concept of what constitutes one
thing being "OK" and another thing being "illegal".
I am confused on the grounds that (and this is where I'd like your
thoughts) the MoQ says DQ is the greatest thing to happen in/around a society
(yes?). If this is the case then where EXACTLY do we draw the lines between DQ
(and the quest for it) and having a choice to 1) reject DQ for some things
quietly or 2) grab that specific DQ and serve time in jail???
There seems to be way too many (conservative?) hypocrisies when it comes
to freedom of ... At the same time, as the US invades/occupies other
countries we draw those lines when it comes to our "space" yet THEIR space is (?).
Sort of like, "What yours is mine and what's mine is ...mine".
Or maybe better put - how would you define a terrorist act of rebellion
against the US hegemony? And why is it that "US hegemony" is fictitious in
our eyes but 100 other countries can see it? And what if their terrorism is to
keep what we would call Static Patterns, but what they (may) call DQ going?
Again, I apologize for my youth when it comes to discussing these things
but I see things through a child's eyes sometimes, which could be useful to
some.
Thanks,
Dan H
In a message dated 12/14/2004 3:31:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ajb102@psu.edu writes:
Dan,
> 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"?
> 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.
> 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.
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).
Like all conservative mumbojumbo, its just random Victorian morality, with no
Intellectual justification whatsoever.
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
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 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 00:12:07 GMT