Hi Bruno, Thank you for the detailed response. I was aware of most arguments up until the self-referential machine part and, of course, agree with them. That part I'm still digesting, although I believe I understand most of your argument there.
I'm having a hard time understanding this particular statement: "The lobian error is that prohibition at the start deprive its target of its responsibility. Eventually it dissolves irresponsibility in a unsustainable economical pyramidal power which can only crash. Better to stop that asap!" You might be interested in this 1-year old article from Time, discussing how drug use decriminalization in my home country (Portugal) resulted in a decrease in said drug use: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html Best Regards, Telmo. > 78 % of the heroin consumers have begin with cannabis. > > This is a confusion between A => B and B => A, or A included in B with B > included in A. > > To see if the consumption of substance A leads to the consumption of > substance B, you have to look at the proportion of the consumers of B among > A; not at the proportion of the consumers of A among B. You could as well > say water is a gateway drug, given that 100% of the heroin consumers have > begun with water. > > I have a paper in a magazine with a big title: 'the first death by salvia > divinorum". It relates the case of a guy who get an heart attack when > smoking salvia. I let you see it is the same error as above (together with > the non genuine idea of using a sample with only one element). > > The same error are done, even by "expert" in the relation made between > cannabis and lung cancer, or cannabis and (Mexican) violence. > Another example, one day a car accident nearby involved three drivers > having smoked cannabis, and already some minister said we have to be more > though on drugs. Again to derive this you have to look at the quantity of > car accident among those who smoked cannabis, not at the quantity of smokers > of cannabis among those who have a car accident. It is always a confusion > between A included in B and B included in A. > That same error occurs pretty everywhere, and I think purely associative > neural nets does that error. It is easy to do that error, as implication is > a not so intuitive concept. > > > Note that *in the circumstance of prohibition*, cannabis is indeed a > gateway drug. A non negligible number of cannabis smoker get addicted to > tobacco by their first joints. That number decreases thanks to the legality > of ... tobacco. That legality makes transparent 'soon or later' the 'truth' > about the product. We know today (smoked) tobacco is killer one in the > world. > To add tobacco to cannabis consists to put a toxic and addictive product to > enjoy a product which by itself has never been found to led to any > problem. Also, the prohibition of cannabis makes it available only in > underground market where sellers don't ask your ID, and could add addictive > product to cannabis for making you coming back, or just may advertise you on > other drugs. So prohibition of cannabis, or anything, leads to gateway > effect. > The evidence are on the side that cannabis and salvia are among the safest > and most efficacious known medication. In the Netherlands and in France, > some study seems to show that driving under cannabis reduced the frequency > of car accident. It has been known 20 years ago in the USA that it can cure > some cancers, and this has been only recently confirmed on both mouse and > humans that it does so. I can give hundreds of reference/links on this. > > Today many lies and many correct reasoning and genuine information can be > found by just surfing on YouTube. > > See this video (among many), on the legalization of cannabis illustrating > the error, and its correction: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKlXULsBdS0&feature=related > > > Now, at a deeper level, the whole prohibition may be seen as a logical > error, from a self-referential logical perspective. But I have to be > cautious, for not falling myself in the trap I will try to describe. > > Recall that G describe the communicable or provable part of the correct > self-referential machine, and G* \minus G, describes the true but non > communicable/provable part. Some times (notably in "Conscience et > Mécanisme") I call the elements of G* minus G, the Protagorean virtues. > Plato said that Protagoras asked once if such virtue can be taught. Those > 'Protagorean virtues", that is those elements belonging to G* minus G, obeys > to the following logical equation: Bx -> ~x. If you try to make them > necessary by finite combinatorial structure, being proof, laws, literal > texts, teaching, etc. you get the opposite or the negation of what you tried > to communicate. Alan Watts, in his book "the wisdom of insecurity" argues > that security has such property: to constrain or solidify security leads to > insecurity. Happiness is like that, and almost all qualitative positive > moral things are like that in my opinion. Many institution falls in the trap > to make necessary such values, and destroys their cause in the process. > Love, which is always the love of the good, or good-love, is the most > typical one: you cannot force anyone one to love anyone or anything. > > Now, if you accept that more generally appreciation, which is always > "good-appreciation", for food or products is such a Protagorean virtue, then > "Not appreciating a product" will belong to G* minus G, and cannot be > enforced without leading to the contrary of its cause. In the present case > prohibition of a drug makes it proliferate wildly, uncontrollably, and the > same for the number of consumers of that drug. Actually prohibition, like in > the 1930 alcohol prohibition, even creates new and dangerous or hazardous > drug, like crack cocaine, K2, etc. > > So we have many confirmation of this. France and USA have the more severe > laws against cannabis, and they are the countries with the highest relative > proportion of cannabis smokers. The Netherlands have quasi-legalized and > regulate cannabis, and they have the least use of cannabis in its population > (not including the 'tourists'). > > Concerning prohibition, I think it is just a gangster tool for creating > vast fluxes of black money capable of corrupting all the upper sphere of the > democracies. Some cartel have black economies bigger that the national > economy of many countries. Prohibition is just *black* money addiction. The > situation get worse by the ineluctable interplay of big black economy and > honest economies leading to grey money making harder to stop prohibition and > corruption. Like I said in a comment on YouTube: prohibition sucks from Al > Capone to Al Qaeda. > > The lobian error is that prohibition at the start deprive its target of its > responsibility. Eventually it dissolves irresponsibility in a unsustainable > economical pyramidal power which can only crash. Better to stop that asap! > > It is here that I am flying near the Löbian trap myself. Please note that I > am not saying : > - correct+Lobianity is incompatible with prohibition and we are correct and > lobian, so we have to stop prohibition. > That would be notably saying "we are correct and lobian", which no correct > lobian machine can say! > What I am saying is that correct+Lobianity is incompatible with prohibition > and we have to stop prohibition (because of its observable failure and its > invalid justification!) so we are perhaps or could tend to be correct and > lobian. > > The good news is that those who actually do that "war on drugs" growingly > get the points; like in this videos and many others: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdzZaXwf8o > > Actually the following videos illustrate many of this lobian catastophe in > the war on drugs. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6t1EM4Onao > > Those are clever or intelligent cops and judge in the sense that not only > they realize their error, but they recognize it publicly. > > A last more funny video, figuring more innocent cops, just to remind you > that cannabis and salvia, although very safe, are entheogen. The main use > consists in "dying": that's the point, and it might be a little scary if > you are not prepared: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZb5wi_jsU&feature=related > > :) > > Best regards, > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/> > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For example, when most lies on cannabis are defeated, prohibitionists claim it is a gateway drug. It would lead to the consumption of stronger drugs. If asked to justify, they say propositions like that: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
