From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 16:31:27 GMT
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 for
it.
> > > 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.
>
>" . . . 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".
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 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.
> > 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).
>
>I've never heard smoking cigars leading to a crack cocaine addiction. Have
>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 concerns
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, with
> > no Intellectual justification whatsoever.
>
>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?
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.
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 - 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 - 16:36:51 GMT