Hi Telmo,

Nobody knows logic. Marijuana illegality, and the whole prohibition politics are based on error in the most elementary part of logic. And formal logic, a branch of mathematics, is virtually known only by professional logicians.

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I would love to know about your formal argument against Marijuana illegality and prohibition politics.

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:

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:


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:


Actually the following videos illustrate many of this lobian catastophe in the war on drugs.


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:



Best regards,



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to