Hear Hear!

On 8/29/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing
you may as well wait until retirement.

I don't believe in drugs.

A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere.

There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.

Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation).

The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of criminals.

We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue.

The two most dangerous recreative "drug" are alcohol and tobacco. The bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime.

And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like "wood-alcohol, or brew" when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in terrible pain. In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin consumption.

Prohibition is the problem, not "drugs". Black money is the problem, and worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance, which is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into the hostage of the drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into a big Chicago.

And I was used to separate the "war on drugs" from the "war on terror", but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind on this. I begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Pure fear selling business.

But thanks for the retired folk, Richard.
Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: "sorry, but you are to much young, wait for "growing up"" a little bit :)


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

    Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be
    used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small
    differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to
    assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision
    must be itself compared with other "drug", like making similar
    tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the
    IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or
    To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in
    statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than
    usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the
    conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we
    are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of
    basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as
    people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug)
    laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since
    the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap.


    On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

    Finally we have the whole story and truth:

    Direct link to PDF in question:


    Link to abstract:


    Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such
    jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and
    Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day
    artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones,
    the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane,
    Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe & the Fish, Joe Walsh,
    David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S.
    Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead
    O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc.

    Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some
    and not for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had
    to pay for their sins in terms of neuropsychological decline.

    It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers
    under-performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence
    and a sample size of 1000.

    :) Good science.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to