Talk-Polywell.org

Posted: **Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:55 pm**

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... l-accident

Posted: **Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:19 pm**

MSimon wrote:http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... l-accident

So are cigarettes. Thousands of acres and homes burn every year because people are using the d@mn things.

No doubt fire prevention is Moral imposing from the Libertarian perspective.

Posted: **Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:18 pm**

Schizophrenia and Tobacco

And that is just for hard core schizos. Mild schizophrenia is rather more common.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 78929.html

====

BTW what I am arguing for is to make the less dangerous (than alcohol) drugs legal.

Edited to make the first link clickable.

Posted: **Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:03 pm**

MSimon wrote:<a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... izophrenia and Tobacco</a>

And that is just for hard core schizos. Mild schizophrenia is rather more common.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 78929.html

====

BTW what I am arguing for is to make the less dangerous (than alcohol) drugs legal.

Yeah, the legal ones don't do enough damage. What we need are more addictive and more damaging drugs to really screw the country properly!

Alcohol only does the damage that it does because it's of it's ubiquity. Make cocaine or heroin available to the extent that Alcohol is and we will be well and truly screwed.

Posted: **Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:27 am**

Diogenes wrote:
MSimon wrote:<a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... izophrenia and Tobacco</a>

And that is just for hard core schizos. Mild schizophrenia is rather more common.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 78929.html

====

BTW what I am arguing for is to make the less dangerous (than alcohol) drugs legal.
Yeah, the legal ones don't do enough damage. What we need are more addictive and more damaging drugs to really screw the country properly!

Alcohol only does the damage that it does because it's of it's ubiquity. Make cocaine or heroin available to the extent that Alcohol is and we will be well and truly screwed.

Aren't there more deaths from cocaine and heroine now than when they were legal?

Posted: **Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:12 am**

D,

You keep making the same mistake because you are infected with the word virus.

Prohibited does not mean unavailable. It means distributed by criminals. Which is why it is easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer.

And here I was under the impression that you proponents of prohibition were doing it for the children.

Funny thing is that we could have learned that lesson from alcohol prohibition.

Image from:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old ... aurs.shtml

Posted: **Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:29 am**

Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first few years of Prohibition. The superintendents of eight state mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients during Prohibition (1919-1926) than formerly. One of the hospitals noted: "During the past year (1926), an unusually large group of patients who are of high school age were admitted for alcoholic psychosis" (Brown, 1932:176).

In determining the age at which an alcoholic forms his drinking habit, it was noted: "The 1920-1923 group were younger than the other groups when the drink habit was formed" (Pollock, 1942: 113).

AVERAGE AGE AT FORMATION OF DRINK HABIT
Code: Select all
Period 	Males        Females
1914--- 	21.4          27.9
1920-23 	20.6          25.8
1936-37 	23.9          31.7
http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionr ... ildren.htm

Posted: **Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:45 pm**

krenshala wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
MSimon wrote:<a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... izophrenia and Tobacco</a>

And that is just for hard core schizos. Mild schizophrenia is rather more common.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 78929.html

====

BTW what I am arguing for is to make the less dangerous (than alcohol) drugs legal.
Yeah, the legal ones don't do enough damage. What we need are more addictive and more damaging drugs to really screw the country properly!

Alcohol only does the damage that it does because it's of it's ubiquity. Make cocaine or heroin available to the extent that Alcohol is and we will be well and truly screwed.
Aren't there more deaths from cocaine and heroine now than when they were legal?

Isn't the population bigger now?
Isn't the population more prosperous now?

When cocaine was outlawed it was a lot harder to make a living or just plain old survive. Life was tougher back then, and people who couldn't work starved. We didn't have conditions of excess prosperity where layabouts and ne'er do wells could hustle up enough money to feed a habit easily.

And dare I say it, people were a lot more moral back then. Once cocaine extracts were discovered to be addictive, a lot of people rejected their use on moral as well as practical grounds.

Statistical numbers CAN be translated from the past to the future, but to do it with any degree of comprehension, you must factor in the zeitgeist of the period.

Posted: **Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:21 pm**

MSimon wrote:D,

You keep making the same mistake because you are infected with the word virus.

Prohibited does not mean unavailable. It means distributed by criminals.

I beg to differ. Prohibited means mala prohibita, or unlawful by decree. Just because something is declared unlawful it does not follow that it is automatically distributed by criminals. It is only distributed by criminals if there remains a market for it, and the remuneration is worthwhile.

I'm sure some criminals distribute legal things as well.

MSimon wrote:
Which is why it is easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer.

I've been pondering this statement that you keep repeating, and I think perhaps i've developed some insight regarding it. If taken at face value, it is obviously false, yet you keep repeating it, so I asked myself how could MSimon possibly regard this as a true statement after I have repeatedly demonstrated that the statement cannot be true?

The secret lies with the term "Legal beer."

In context, the term can be interpreted two ways. "Beer" as a "Legal" product, or "Beer" as an event, as in having a "beer."

Under the first interpretation, (and the more likely way that anyone would interpret the sentence) the statement is demonstrably incorrect. But under the Second interpretation, the statement is true.

Since children cannot legally have a "beer", they cannot have a "legal" beer. They can certainly get their hands on the legal product "beer." (and quite easily.) but they cannot have a "legal beer", because the act of having a beer constitutes an illegal event in and of itself.

It's just like minors cannot have "Legal" sex. Sex itself is not illegal, and minors can have sex, but the act of a minor having sex IS illegal.

So basically you are using a play on words in an attempt to fool people. Well you fooled me for quite a while because it never occurred to me that you would persist in such a silly game.

Jolly joke that.

MSimon wrote: And here I was under the impression that you proponents of prohibition were doing it for the children.

Children, Uncles, Grandfathers, Fathers, Friends and everyone else I knew who was killed or injured as a result of someone abusing alcohol or drugs.

Interesting story, the guy that was the defacto leader of the Anti-Saloon league (Wayne Wheeler) was convinced of the need to eradicate alcohol after being stabbed by a drunken neighbor for no apparent reason.

You might argue that it wasn't the alcohol that caused the stabbing, and perhaps the neighbor was going to stab Wayne Wheeler anyway. Obviously the stabbing and the alcohol are completely unrelated.

MSimon wrote: Funny thing is that we could have learned that lesson from alcohol prohibition.

Image from:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... -Taps.html

I think we learned the wrong lesson from prohibition. The lesson we should have learned is that you cannot turn the ship of a nation on a dime, and that attempts to change accepted social attitudes should not be rushed.

The Liberals learned the correct lessons. They provide constant pressure in the direction they want, and eventually the helm (Public opinion) responds. Of course, steering towards disaster is easy, because the path is downhill and broad.

Posted: **Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:10 am**

D,

The per capita death rate is up due to a number of things:

1. High prices encourage injection.
2. Unsanitary mfg conditions
3. Unsanitary distribution (cutting)
4. Needle sharing due to restrictions on availability
5. Purity variations (a given packet can be from 20% to 80% pure - up from 1 to 5% 40 years ago)
6. Prostitution to pay for the high prices - a disease vector into the general population

These were all noted within a few years of the passage of the Harrison Narcotics act. You can look it up.

It is amazing that you can develop such strong notions based on so little information.

Fortunately I have been educating for 40 years. I am putting an end to this stupidity. It is not a question of if. Only when.

Posted: **Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:31 pm**

MSimon wrote:D,

The per capita death rate is up due to a number of things:

1. High prices encourage injection.
2. Unsanitary mfg conditions
3. Unsanitary distribution (cutting)
4. Needle sharing due to restrictions on availability
5. Purity variations (a given packet can be from 20% to 80% pure - up from 1 to 5% 40 years ago)
6. Prostitution to pay for the high prices - a disease vector into the general population

These were all noted within a few years of the passage of the Harrison Narcotics act. You can look it up.

Yes, all the factors you listed are valid and significant, and all the factors I listed are false and irrelevant.

MSimon wrote: It is amazing that you can develop such strong notions based on so little information.

I'll have to quote Lex Luthor on that:

"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

MSimon wrote: Fortunately I have been educating for 40 years. I am putting an end to this stupidity. It is not a question of if. Only when.

My Adopted father tried to explain electricity to me when I was 12. I had already read dozens of books on the subject, but I politely listened.

He drew a picture of a wire and told me "Electricity flows in a wire in a zig zag (he meant sinusoidal) shape. First it jumps out of the wire here, then it passes through the wire to the other side, and jumps out of the wire there. That's why electricity can shock you, because it's jumping out of the wire. "

Silly me, I told him that it didn't work that way. I explained that it flowed first in one direction, then it reversed direction. It "alternated" in polarity.

He became quite angry, told me he'd been an electrician for 30 years and he knew what he was talking about. I opined that perhaps some people learned faster than others and didn't need 30 years to figure something out.

He was not amused. Neither was my mother. Quite the blowup that one.

God bless him. He was like many people in my life. You simply can't tell them a d@mn thing. They already know so much there isn't room for deviation from what they've convinced themselves is already the absolute truth.

(An accusation often leveled at me. Seldom validated by subsequent events or facts. Evolving my opinion is something I do constantly. )

Posted: **Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:54 pm**

This reminds me of a situation I found myself in. I discovered during a trainging that of the 14 Master Electricians that worked for me, not one knew the difference between AC and DC electricity. The concept was completely beyond them. But, goodness, could they the code book.

Posted: **Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:22 pm**

ladajo wrote:This reminds me of a situation I found myself in. I discovered during a trainging that of the 14 Master Electricians that worked for me, not one knew the difference between AC and DC electricity. The concept was completely beyond them. But, goodness, could they the code book.

:?

I run into that all the time on this subject. The people who reject the latest in the medical literature. But they sure "know" the subject. And believe reason is on their side.

BTW if the code is wrong the Master Electricians will do the wrong thing because they are unable to THINK. But boy are they good at electrical "lawyering".

Not to worry. The kids are reading me and others like me and as the OFs die off the laws will get changed. My police detective friend thinks the time frame is five years. +/-

We are spending $25 bn a year (at the Federal level) to make it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer. I propose doing that for free.

Posted: **Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:17 pm**

MSimon wrote:
ladajo wrote:This reminds me of a situation I found myself in. I discovered during a trainging that of the 14 Master Electricians that worked for me, not one knew the difference between AC and DC electricity. The concept was completely beyond them. But, goodness, could they the code book.

I run into that all the time on this subject. The people who reject the latest in the medical literature. But they sure "know" the subject. And believe reason is on their side.

Ah, would that medicine were as reliable as physics. First they say grains are good for you, then they say grains are bad for you. Then they say coffee is bad for you, next they say coffee is good for you. There is a reason why they refer to it as the "Art" of Medicine, and why the use of Medicine is called a "practice."

I've caught doctors being wrong on many occasions. They use Greek terminology for a reason, mostly to cover up the fact that half the time they don't have a clue what's wrong. Often, they don't even agree with each other.

MSimon wrote: BTW if the code is wrong the Master Electricians will do the wrong thing because they are unable to THINK. But boy are they good at electrical "lawyering".

Not to worry. The kids are reading me and others like me and as the OFs die off the laws will get changed. My police detective friend thinks the time frame is five years. +/-

It is worrisome. Kids will believe anything even if it's not true, and so those who try to convince them that the stuff is harmless are doing great harm. Good intentioned harm, but harm non the less.

MSimon wrote: We are spending $25 bn a year (at the Federal level) to make it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer. I propose doing that for free.

I think you keep repeating this because you suspect it annoys me. Not so much as you might think. As a matter of fact, i'm going to use that as my tag line! Since so many people already want to believe the opposite of what I say, I can think of no better of a way to discredit the idea!

Posted: **Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:02 pm**

At my kids high school it is easier for a kid to get a legal pain killer than a legal beer and it is easier for a them to get a legal beer than an illegal drug.

BTW, once heroin and crack are legal, I assume the same arguments that made them legal will also apply to the development and production of new instantly addicting mind altering substances. I, for one, can't wait to see what all of these failed biotechs can come up with once all restrictions are lifted. It will be bad ass!

Legal in 5 years. LOL!

Talk-Polywell.org

Alcohol Is a Very Dangerous Drug

Alcohol Is a Very Dangerous Drug

Re: Alcohol Is a Very Dangerous Drug