From: RycheWorld@aol.com
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 21:50:39 GMT
Platt,
> Dan answers:
> I think marijuana should be legalized - but governed under the same laws
> of alcohol. It has non-addictive traits (physical).
Platt responds:
That's debatable. But what about other illegal drugs? Would you legalize
them, too. If not, why not?
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'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.
Platt responds:
I would guess it's illegal because it often leads to use of stronger drugs
with resultant higher social costs. But, I'm not an expert on the subject.
Dan asks:
And alcohol doesn't contribute to bad patterns and other drugs too?!?! The
first thing I ever did was divulge in beer.
> Platt to Arlo:
> " . . . costs on drug use"?? Another Arlononsequitur."
> Dan answers: 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?
Platt responds:
You seem to be against making money. Is there something immoral in that?
How are you going to buy your marijuana if you don't make money? As for
political campaigns, would you make it illegal for companies, billionaires
and web sites like moveon.org to contribute?
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?
> Platt asked:
> "!) As if blowing your mind is intellectual quality, and 2) as if drugs
> don't threaten society. (Been to a gang war lately?)"
> Dan answers: Platt, I really don't believe that illegal drugs have one
> specific outcome from consumption, that is to "blow one's mind".
> If we're
> comparing apples let's review the outcomes of alcohol use. Are you saying
> alcohol is completely safe?
No. But are you saying we should ban alcohol and all other drugs? Or
legalize all drugs? I'm not sure where you stand on the drug issue... .
> And Gang Wars aren't necessarily over drugs! To
> me, that's a superficial comment. What about suppression and poverty.
What about it? Who's suppressing whom?
> What
> else do these kids have when that's all we're teaching them???
We're teaching them to be gang members?
>Or, maybe
> that's all we're (the "fortunate") are labeling them as. I see a lot of
> contradictions with that statement when you get to the roots.
Platt responds:
How come we're the "fortunate"? Did we just get lucky in Las Vegas?
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 America...as 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" BS.
> Platt asked:
> "I've never heard smoking cigars leading to a crack cocaine addiction.
> Have you?"
> Dan answers: Not crack addiction. But tobacco addiction. Are they really
> that far off? They both wind up killing, one maybe slower than the other.
Platt asks:
So you would make tobacco illegal, too?
Dan says:
Yes! What, it shouldn't be because it's not a hallucinogen?
> > Like all conservative mumbo jumbo, its just random Victorian morality,
> > with no Intellectual justification whatsoever.
> Platt replied:
> "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."
> Dan answers: If I smoke a marijuana cigarette what business is it of
> yours? If I smoke and get behind a car THEN it becomes a public concern.
If you smoke while employed as a quality checker at a drug company, THEN
if becomes a public concern. Or screw up in other ways.
Dan says:
That's what I was trying to say. Yes, I agree.
> And, as you stated, "If it feels good do it." Isn't that a prime example
> of DQ???
Platt says:
If getting high is your idea of pursuing DQ, go for it. The higher you
get, the more DQ you'll see. Trip out, man. Be cool.
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!!!
Dan H
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 - 00:26:47 GMT