Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. And to get back OT. In DB's Earth that behaviour leading to satisfaction of the urge that lets the body produce enorfins is very much frowned upon. And even meditation is seen as a form of serious drugabuse. Personally, I see winking out by using any kind of drug (including tobacco and alcohol) as a choice. And I feel that anybody who cannot resist the urge at least has a duty to determin if that is the way he/she wants to live. Also I'd like them to find a way to minimise impact of their habit on anybody elses lives. One of the problems in todays society (especially those with strong anti-drug laws) is that a person doesn't have the time to deal with the (socially not accepted forms of ) addiction itself either way. Most of the lucid time is spent acquiring money to support the habit. They float so to speak from point to point slipping further and further away from the regular lucid world. And then there is the medicinal use of cannabis. Sonja GCU: As good as it gets. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip To bring it back to the conversation at hand, it's the difference between denying that something like rape is related to legitimate needs and denying any opportunity to meet those needs. Society can pretend that such crimes have no basis whatever in legitimate needs, which I think has to change before we can begin to address such problems successfully, which would begin to end the denial (failure to offer) of treatment as an alternative or in addition to incarceration. I'm having trouble with this, including precisely 'what' and 'why,' but I'll try to delineate. I am unable to see that something like rape is related to legitimate needs - I can see for stealing, and drug use, and even 'crimes of passion' like a man finds _his_ woman with his best friend and goes berserk -- but *not* premeditated heinous crimes like rape or torture. (You didn't mention the latter, but I'm using it as another example of behavior for which I see no excuse whatsoever.) Food, clothing, shelter, comfort, feeling good, escaping from intolerable pain or loneliness, depending on the loyalty of loved ones -- these are all needs I can relate to as a fellow human, although _how_ one gets them is an issue. Even in certain child abuse cases I can see that the perpetrator is seeking affection/acceptance, albeit in a completely wrong and unacceptable way (such that if there isn't an underlying curable/controllable medical condition, incarceration/permanent separation from society is justifiable IMO). What legitimate needs in our culture* are met by rape or torture? I will allow as 'probably understandable' horrific behavior that occurs when children are subjected to unrelenting brutality, as in the case of child-soldiers who are taken out of their homes and forced by adults to participate in heinous behavior. But in our culture rape (and torture) are clearly labeled wrong bad and even evil, so that no mentally competent adult who's watched a week's worth of TV can claim not to know that these behaviors are illegal and unacceptable. Rape is not really about sex, from what I've read, but perhaps more about control - and there are plenty of ways to exert control without force. ( As for torture - no clue.) *There are cultures which still practice bride capture instead of 'courtship,' but that is not acceptable behavior here, and hopefully won't be 'there' either, in the near-future. Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship ... (1) So if [I] put words in [your] head by saying that [their legitimate needs] are denied, by denial of legitimate needs do you mean self-denial by the person with the needs, or what? I honestly want to understand what you are saying. Now I understand, I think... There's ambiguity in a phrase like denying the needs. It's the difference between denying that the needs exist (like the psychological denial that makes it unbelievable that my best friend has cancer) and denial of the resources that would address the needs (like denying him medical care). To bring it back to the conversation at hand, it's the difference between denying that something like rape is related to legitimate needs and denying any opportunity to meet those needs. Society can pretend that such crimes have no basis whatever in legitimate needs, which I think has to change before we can begin to address such problems successfully, which would begin to end the denial (failure to offer) of treatment as an alternative or in addition to incarceration. I'm sorry if I misunderstood which one you were saying. It's all a bit fuzzy for me now, but my best friend really does have cancer and my thinking isn't as clear as usual (sympathy brain problems?). Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Both Nick and Dan wrote interesting replies to my last post in this subject, but I haven't had the time or energy to respond properly and may not for several days as I'm headed out of town soon. Just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring your posts... Doug Bed, very soon... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 06:51 AM 8/20/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship ... (1) So if [I] put words in [your] head by saying that [their legitimate needs] are denied, by denial of legitimate needs do you mean self-denial by the person with the needs, or what? I honestly want to understand what you are saying. Now I understand, I think... There's ambiguity in a phrase like denying the needs. I guess in a case like this it's too bad we don't speak one of the Galactic languages where there is no ambiguity (to make an on-topic comment at least). It's the difference between denying that the needs exist (like the psychological denial that makes it unbelievable that my best friend has cancer) and denial of the resources that would address the needs (like denying him medical care). To bring it back to the conversation at hand, it's the difference between denying that something like rape is related to legitimate needs and denying any opportunity to meet those needs. Society can pretend that such crimes have no basis whatever in legitimate needs, which I think has to change before we can begin to address such problems successfully, which would begin to end the denial (failure to offer) of treatment as an alternative or in addition to incarceration. I'm sorry if I misunderstood which one you were saying. It's all a bit fuzzy for me now, but my best friend really does have cancer and my thinking isn't as clear as usual (sympathy brain problems?). I can certainly understand. When you have a chance (absolutely no rush), maybe we can discuss what if anything we as members of society can do to help address the problem as you see it. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Dan Minette wrote: My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. I've heard the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug. Of course, if it were legal to buy joints like you buy cigarettes, the folks interested in just smoking pot wouldn't do anything illegal to get their drug of choice, so they wouldn't be in contact with dealers of other illegal substances, making it harder to jump from legal to illegal if marijuana were the drug of interest. But I really wouldn't want the US cigarette companies getting into the business of producing joints, considering what kind of additive crap goes into tobacco cigarettes. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... When are we going to wake up and realize that people want to get high? From the mild stimulus of caffeine, the outwardly innocuousness of nicotine and the destructiveness of alcohol. From legal stimulants and depressants to illegal hallucinogens, it seems like its human nature to want to alter ones mood. Not everyone of course, but what percent of the population do you think does none of the above? This has been rumbling around in my head for the last day. The problem with your premise is that illegal drugs stimulate production of endorphins, and so do all sorts of legitimate things, such as exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. The statement that its human nature to want to alter ones mood is the same to me as, people want to feel good. Most certainly! So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. Addiction (which actually is a problem, unlike drugs, IMO) isn't about the urge to feel good, which is totally legitimate. Addiction has to do with producing endorphins by satisfying legitimate needs -- exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. -- in inappropriate ways. I don't think there's any question that rapists, for example, commit the act in part because the risk and the violence triggers production of lots of adrenaline and other neurochemicals. There's nothing wrong with wanting the satisfaction that comes from triggering that physiological reaction, but the means of doing so is beyond inappropriate. The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Julia wrote: Hm. I thought that Quakerism was a sect of Christianity. How do you criminalize a set and *not* criminalize a subset of that set? :) Good point. Better to be safe than sorry. Let's criminalize Quakerism as well. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 07:28 AM 8/19/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... When are we going to wake up and realize that people want to get high? From the mild stimulus of caffeine, the outwardly innocuousness of nicotine and the destructiveness of alcohol. From legal stimulants and depressants to illegal hallucinogens, it seems like its human nature to want to alter ones mood. Not everyone of course, but what percent of the population do you think does none of the above? This has been rumbling around in my head for the last day. The problem with your premise is that illegal drugs stimulate production of endorphins, and so do all sorts of legitimate things, such as exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. The statement that its human nature to want to alter ones mood is the same to me as, people want to feel good. Most certainly! So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. Addiction (which actually is a problem, unlike drugs, IMO) isn't about the urge to feel good, which is totally legitimate. Addiction has to do with producing endorphins by satisfying legitimate needs -- exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. -- in inappropriate ways. I don't think there's any question that rapists, for example, commit the act in part because the risk and the violence triggers production of lots of adrenaline and other neurochemicals. There's nothing wrong with wanting the satisfaction that comes from triggering that physiological reaction, but the means of doing so is beyond inappropriate. The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? I think I already gave a number of examples... but you've put words in my head by saying that they are denied. What I'm saying is that people, for various reasons, fail to learn how to see that their needs are met legitimately, and thus turn to other ways. This is not to imply that their eyes simply need to be opened. Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! I can't get specific about how to meet everyone's needs! Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. Of course, they often don't want to change... Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 01:09 PM 8/19/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? I think I already gave a number of examples... but you've put words in my head by saying that they are denied. I apologize if that's what I did, but see below. What I'm saying is that people, for various reasons, fail to learn how to see that their needs are met legitimately, and thus turn to other ways. This is not to imply that their eyes simply need to be opened. Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! I can't get specific about how to meet everyone's needs! Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. Of course, they often don't want to change... You said in your earlier message: quote I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. /quote (1) So if [I] put words in [your] head by saying that [their legitimate needs] are denied, by denial of legitimate needs do you mean self-denial by the person with the needs, or what? I honestly want to understand what you are saying. (2) You wrote For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I suggested that we start by openly talking about those things (whatever they are) here. You wrote: Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! Agree. Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. Strongly agree. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. Strongly agree. Feeling good, and its opposite of feeling bad, are really strong motivational forces. Most of us try to find ways to feel good as much as possible and to eliminate feeling bad as much as possible. Sometimes, of course, the only way to deal with things is to grit our teeth and work through the bad to get to the point where good things happen more often, but as you say later in the paragraph, often we don't want to change, because change is hard. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. So as I suggested above, if the problem (or part of it) is that we as a society are unwilling to talk openly about a number of things, why don't we start by talking openly about those things here? Of course, they often don't want to change... Strongly agree. Change is hard. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Could you elaborate? The disruption we've created in Columbia has torn that nation apart. And for all our efforts, we just create a more lucrative market for cocaine. And if you can coat rural Columbia with Round-Up, why can't you do the same for Afghanistan? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Could you elaborate? Sure, kill anyone growing drugs, and kill their families too. If need be, randomly kill people in the village until they get the idea that their neighbors must be stopped from growing drugs. I'm not sure that the Taliban went quite that far every time, but the notion of human rights was not exactly high on their list. The disruption we've created in Columbia has torn that nation apart. Your suggesting that there would be no gurrillas if we just allowed the cocaine traffic to flourish? Wouldn't the drug czars just own the government and run it like the Mafia then? And for all our efforts, we just create a more lucrative market for cocaine. No, that's not all we've done. With crack use down, murders are also down, substantially. There was a very strong correlation between the murder rate and crack cocaine useage. People have tried various forms of decriminalizing the use of hard drugs. The problem with them is that the tolerance tends to increase with usage. England tried to have regestered addicts who got regular limited amounts of heroin, for example, cheap or free from the government. Of course, they just used this as a subsidy of their total habit, and increased their usage by buying more on the street. And if you can coat rural Columbia with Round-Up, why can't you do the same for Afghanistan? I'd like a source that shows that at least the majority of rural Columbia has been defoliated. Afganistan is a poor country that can barely feed itself. A cash crop like poppies can make a farmer relatively rich. It takes a very repressive regieme to keep virtually everyone from trying to better their financial position this way What I find troublesome with your position is that you seem to suggest that there is an easy answer to the drug problem. Just let people use whatever they want in whatever quantities they want. The difficulty with this is 1) It interferes with the ability to work, so the money has to come from someplace else 2) Unless subsidized by the government, it will still cost money. 3) If cheap, people will tend to keep on increasing their dosage until its near fatal, or at least its no longer cheap. 4) There is a strong association with hard drugs and other crimes. There is a strong correlation between crack and violent behavior. Booze and grass are one thing, there is at least a significant fraction of folks who use/used those in a non-addictive manner. But, the fact that very liberal European countries have reversed the trend towards decriminalization of all drugs should be considered. My understanding is that, when Amsterdam decriminalized all behavior associated with drugs, the drug addicts overwhelmed the town. When New York cracked down, Time Square became someplace you could go with your teenage kids with at night. My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 09:42 PM 8/18/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Could you elaborate? Those used in places like China and Singapore, frex. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
