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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>
>
>
>  --
> 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<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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.

Reply via email to