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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> >> . >> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> > . > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
