Thanks for telling me Telmo,
Have a good day,
Bruno
On 22 Jun 2010, at 11:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Ok, nothing to add. I fully agree with what you say.
Best,
Telmo.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
Hi Telmo,
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!"
It is foolish to believe that some people can decide at your place
what they estimate to be good or bad. For you! It makes you
irresponsible adult. It is a lack of respect of all *person* in
general. It is spiritually foolish.
It is also a typical technic for taking power on others. Indeed, it
allows a collectivity (apparently) to think for you (instead as
acting along a social contract), and thus to control you.
It leads to pyramidal economical structure where the upper part
benefit strongly (in the short run) of lies which kill the
foundation (the people) at the base of the pyramid. The problem
today is planetary. Democracy is the right tool, but it works only
through some amount of trust, (and thus honesty, playing fair), and
powers regulation and independence. This need some amount of self-
honesty (which is about the same as Löbianity, in the world of
universal machines).
Honesty leads to more money to your descendants. Dishonesty can
strongly benefit locally from such money, but at the expense of your
descendants. "Descendant" in a large sense, it may be you older.
Things accelerate.
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
Thanks. It is interesting. To be sure I share the views of the cops
in the LEAP videos. Although decriminalization is a big step in harm
(and drugs) reduction, it does not solve the problem, at his root.
The black money fluxes and the merchandising remains opaque and this
remains both socially fragile and economically dangerous. You are in
advance compared to many countries, but the big step, legalization,
remains to be done.
What I would like to suggest would be to legalize all drugs, and to
tax them with respect to their damages. I am pretty sure alcohol and
tobacco will very soon be the most expensive one, and that after
some time, the insurance company would *pay* you to smoke marijuana
and salvia divinorum ;-)
Best,
Bruno
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/
--
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
.
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
.
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
