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
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
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
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at