And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[MSimon]

Further research has shown that people with a disposition to resort to cannabis use are more likely to live longer and healthier lives than users of other "social drugs" such as alcohol.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory

If word of this gets out Social Security will be in even bigger trouble than it is now. OTOH medical costs might be lower.

And then there was the study showing that in pot legal states traffic fatalities declined 9% directly attributable to substitution of pot for alcohol. They looked.

Report shows fewer traffic fatalities after states pass medical-pot laws - The Denver Post

If I believed in passing laws to solve social problems I might suggest banning alcohol and making pot available over the counter at the local quick mart. Fortunately I believe in letting people decide what they want to do for themselves.

[ladajo]

I was speaking of "any drug use". The data I reviewed did not include the specifics of Pot. It was in the the data set as a subset, but for my study, I looked at any use. So given what I saw, pot 'may' be 'good' for you, but something(s) else clearly offsets it if that is so.

The curves clearly showed that folks who had used drugs dropped off the lifetime curve and age bracket curves (died off?) much faster than those who did not.

[Diogenes]

Here's another one.


Woman Torches 3,500 Year Old Tree In Order to See Her Drugs

A Florida woman was charged this week with arson after she torched a 3,500 old cypress tree in order to better see the drugs she was about to take.
She took pictures of the burning tree with her cellphone.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02 ... her-drugs/

Now She's gone and done it. She's pissed off the Arbor-nuts!

[Teahive]

I think that if you are going to reduce your cognitive function, you are required to do so in an environment with controls that prevent you from hurting others or by encouraging them to hurt themselves.

An interesting thought. I think allowing drug use in controlled environments would be a lot better than outright prohibition.

The notion that children should never have been allowed to learn that there *IS* such a thing as getting "high" simply isn't on your radar.

Maybe children shouldn't be allowed to learn that there are such things as war, violence, greed, or masturbation? It's neither sensible nor practical.

Children need to learn that risk is an integral part of life, and they need to learn to deal with risk, not close their eyes and blindly follow the rules. Maybe that's a true conservative's wet dream: children who grow up just like their parents, no challenging the boundaries, a society that doesn't change. Luckily (for others at least), life doesn't seem to work that way.

Kids' curiosity will always lead them to explore the boundaries, and sometimes go beyond. They might discover something new that way, or suffer bad consequences. But without that first-hand experience, without understanding risk, they're not going to cope well with what life throws in their way.
Maybe it's that urge of parents, commonly seen today, to shelter their kids from every possible danger that deprives them of the skills they need to deal with life on their own. And the consequences are often far more dire than if they had taken some bruises earlier.

[KitemanSA]

I've sometimes thought that kids should be allowed EITHER a driving licence, or a drinking licence, but not both until they have handled the first for about 4 years without incident.

Hmmm.

[Diogenes]

I've sometimes thought that kids should be allowed EITHER a driving licence, or a drinking licence, but not both until they have handled the first for about 4 years without incident.

Hmmm.

I think a drinking/pot license is a reasonable Idea. (At least I am not advised of any bad consequences of it. If they exist, they will of course manifest should the idea ever be tried.)

[Diogenes]

I think that if you are going to reduce your cognitive function, you are required to do so in an environment with controls that prevent you from hurting others or by encouraging them to hurt themselves.

An interesting thought. I think allowing drug use in controlled environments would be a lot better than outright prohibition.

The notion that children should never have been allowed to learn that there *IS* such a thing as getting "high" simply isn't on your radar.

Maybe children shouldn't be allowed to learn that there are such things as war, violence, greed, or masturbation? It's neither sensible nor practical.

Children need to learn that risk is an integral part of life, and they need to learn to deal with risk, not close their eyes and blindly follow the rules. Maybe that's a true conservative's wet dream: children who grow up just like their parents, no challenging the boundaries, a society that doesn't change. Luckily (for others at least), life doesn't seem to work that way.

You romanticize what is simply an unnecessary (at best) and bad idea. (at worst.) Apply your idea to Tobacco and get back to me. If it has a net positive benefit to anyone, please let us know.

Kids' curiosity will always lead them to explore the boundaries, and sometimes go beyond. They might discover something new that way, or suffer bad consequences. But without that first-hand experience, without understanding risk, they're not going to cope well with what life throws in their way.

There are plenty enough challenges in the absence of drugs.

I fear that in order for me to explain my understanding of the concept to you well enough, you will have to be familiar with a whole lot more about human nature and history than I can impart in these message exchanges. All I can say is that a wider historical scope is invaluable in understanding stuff.

Maybe it's that urge of parents, commonly seen today, to shelter their kids from every possible danger that deprives them of the skills they need to deal with life on their own. And the consequences are often far more dire than if they had taken some bruises earlier.

Yes, we should allow our children to play with loaded guns. After all, "Kids' curiosity will always lead them to explore the boundaries, and sometimes go beyond. They might discover something new that way, or suffer bad consequences. But without that first-hand experience, without understanding risk, they're not going to cope well with what life throws in their way."

Or do you think that might be unfair to children who haven't the maturity to properly deal with firearms?

[Teahive]

Apply your idea to Tobacco and get back to me.

Most children learn that there is such a thing as tobacco, and why some people use it. I doubt there are many parents who try to keep their children completely in the dark about tobacco.

There are plenty enough challenges in the absence of drugs.

The reality is that drugs aren't absent in many environments. Kids need to learn to live in reality, not in someone's utopia.

[ladajo]

I've sometimes thought that kids should be allowed EITHER a driving licence, or a drinking licence, but not both until they have handled the first for about 4 years without incident.

Hmmm.

I think a drinking/pot license is a reasonable Idea. (At least I am not advised of any bad consequences of it. If they exist, they will of course manifest should the idea ever be tried.)

Ahh, but that is still regulation. And it is argued here by a few, that Government regulation is bad, it breeds illegal activity. And I fully agree. Given any rule, someone is going to try and break it. They do this based on their own selfish wants. They do not stop to think about the effect on the community, in the short or long. I guess you could say without this concept, what is the point of having a community? Is it not a group with agreed upon principles and limits. It does seem to me sometimes that folks are arguing for an Anarchistic approach. I would offer if that is the desire, then to go buy some land or squat in the wilds of Alaska or Iran, and call it good, and then leave the rest of us that think all should 'do no harm to others' is more or less a good idea.

[Betruger]

I've sometimes thought that kids should be allowed EITHER a driving licence, or a drinking licence, but not both until they have handled the first for about 4 years without incident.

Hmmm.

I think a drinking/pot license is a reasonable Idea. (At least I am not advised of any bad consequences of it. If they exist, they will of course manifest should the idea ever be tried.)

Ahh, but that is still regulation. And it is argued here by a few, that Government regulation is bad, it breeds illegal activity. And I fully agree. Given any rule, someone is going to try and break it. They do this based on their own selfish wants. They do not stop to think about the effect on the community, in the short or long. I guess you could say without this concept, what is the point of having a community? Is it not a group with agreed upon principles and limits. It does seem to me sometimes that folks are arguing for an Anarchistic approach. I would offer if that is the desire, then to go buy some land or squat in the wilds of Alaska or Iran, and call it good, and then leave the rest of us that think all should 'do no harm to others' is more or less a good idea.

But above you're still arguing the problem for a solution, backwards. The problem isn't a lack of a government solution, but that no government solution will fix the real root problem. The root problem is individual ir/responsibility. People are condemned to be free, as someone put it, and that's where the most genuine solution is found. In free will. The same free will that produced the drug problem in the first place.

[ladajo]

The problem isn't a lack of a government solution, but that no government solution will fix the real root problem. The root problem is individual ir/responsibility.

I think that society demands some sort of control. And by definition that is government based. I agree that more education and emphahsis on us all being in this together are important. I also agree that heavy handed government is not the answer. Unfortunately, the give them an inch they take a mile adage is very true on a day to day basis more often than not. I think that the biggest root issue that helps drive the drug problem and others is the completely out of control sense of entitlement that pervades our current society. Why should I pay for birth control pills for college students? Where is their personal responsibility? WTF?

[KitemanSA]

The problem isn't a lack of a government solution, but that no government solution will fix the real root problem. The root problem is individual ir/responsibility.

I think that society demands some sort of control. And by definition that is government based.

No, this is only "by definition government based" to authoritarians. The best control is COMMON law, not legislative law.

I would accept as a helping hand the same kind of thing that the US Government did with respect to commercial common law, i.e., develop a defaul commercial contract. Not "law", default contract. In the absense of specific written content to the contrary, the US Commercial Code is the DEFAULT commercial contract in the land. But it is NOT "LAW". It is not mandated. Any parties can change the specific contents to their content.

I might accept an equivalent "default social contract" as something seperate from legislative "law". We might actually get the best of both worlds!

[Betruger]

I think that the biggest root issue that helps drive the drug problem and others is the completely out of control sense of entitlement that pervades our current society. Why should I pay for birth control pills for college students? Where is their personal responsibility? WTF?

Yep and I don't think nanny govt (IE more nanny than it could be) is anything but a reinforcement of that. If Govt is supposed to be a "soft" Greater Good Helper, then incentivizing positive cultural change like we know is necessary for drugs to be more free (but that's just a consequence, not the goal - the start of the end of the need for overseers) is a textbook example, I think.
Although with Govt as it is... That'd be asking them to commit professional suicide. Asking them to make their work less and less needed.. Notgunnahappen.

I had a couple more things to say but they're lost in insomniac haze Maybe I'll remember later. They were good arguments that hit at the heart of the issue.

The problem isn't a lack of a government solution, but that no government solution will fix the real root problem. The root problem is individual ir/responsibility.

I think that society demands some sort of control. And by definition that is government based.

No, this is only "by definition government based" to authoritarians. The best control is COMMON law, not legislative law.

I would accept as a helping hand the same kind of thing that the US Government did with respect to commercial common law, i.e., develop a defaul commercial contract. Not "law", default contract. In the absense of specific written content to the contrary, the US Commercial Code is the DEFAULT commercial contract in the land. But it is NOT "LAW". It is not mandated. Any parties can change the specific contents to their content.

I might accept an equivalent "default social contract" as something seperate from legislative "law". We might actually get the best of both worlds!

The best control is individual, well informed discipline.

One of the things that rub me backwards with big govt guys is that in effect they're saying... We can't have better world today, so it ain't worth starting the push that today yields nothing substantial but will pay off a couple of generations down our descendance. IE our kids' kids or their grandkids. That's not what motivates BGGs but it's a consequence. They perpetuate govt for multiple generations .... for the sake of one generation.

In any case, ridding ourselves of govt is and must be the ultimate objective. That's not to say Anarchy is the goal, but that none or negligible government's a clear consequence of the real objective: Man civilized enough to not require bondage for his own survival, IE "government" as we've had it so far historically, from the start of "society".

[ladajo]

I agree with the idea (as stated many times) of reduced government. I would argue, as noted by others, that in some cases, folks have repeatedly demonstrated a need for governance. The enitire point of having a society is to come together for the common good. By definition, coming together requires some sort of rules set. This idea can be interpreted many ways, but at the end of it remains that if you do no t play by the rules accepted by the society, then the society will do something about it. The most recognized form of this control, is the empowerfment, by society, of a construct to envoke that control when needed, in a fair and society agreed manner.

As far as commerical law goes, I would counter your point Kite, and ask what you think of the volumes and voumes of case law used as grounf truth reference in commerical disputes, as well as the concept of Torts.

Courts and Sheriffs rountinely get involved in commercial issues.

[Betruger]

I look at it long term. Eventually we get past scarcity - Mr Fusion and Drexler@home's. Why do your or I need government? Ceteris paribus, only because of my (as an average contemporary of ours) irresponsibility:

I can FO (like anyone else with a presumably innocent need for doing their own thing away from society's interference -- personally I'd like to find some empty piece of mountainside somewhere on Mars or Titan and blast it with some Beethoven running on mountain-destroying sound equipment) to somewhere far (main asteroid belt, Jupiter trojans, etc) and grief others (Earth) with impactors that've had multiple astronomical units worth of acceleration, or whatever other devious ideas that kind of person can think of (send out impactor swarm further out - retreat for more acceleration).

The implications of everyone being self sufficient and therefore (with not much more than 10yrs, just a small fraction of their life if done the hard way - autodidactic) perfectly capable of building their own space ship and settling down elsewhere than Earth, are just huge in terms of "national security". It means everyone's got cosmic space to play with. If you add technology as it ought to be by then, it's almost inevitably dangerous enough to get something on the order of national govts' attention.

Other than that, I see no need for continued government once we're past scarcity. There is no innate need to hurt others nor to be told how to live if it hurts no one else. It's only because of how rotten social life still is, here and now, that people go feral.

So with that rambling (nearly 35 hours without sleep, sorry) tangent/illustration out of the way, the distant but contiguous objective IMO is clearly the abolition of the need for government. Government is nothing but a shackle on Man's arms and feet. That Man is also shackled from genuine freedom by his irresponsibility, at this point in time, is no justification for perpetuating government as if it were sine qua non to civilization... We deserve better. Sint ut sunt, aut non sint.

The analogy to current record industry and MPAA fat cats' myopia with regards to how inevitable free-flowing digital data is going to get sooner than later is clear, and is similar also to middle-easterners apparent inability to see beyond the Time of Petrol. Inevitably we're going to get past scarcity and with that the need for the bondage-of-labor with the rest of the planet that's imposed on almost everyone on the planet for the sake of getting to post-scarcity... And then what? No change in government? That's just not gonna work, not when people are potentially, effectively as free from society's impositions as electrons from a nucleus whose charge was magically snuffed.

Sorry again if the above's clear as mud. Impact with pillow in T- 60 seconds.