I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit
biased
towards "the dangers of Cannabis" and lacking in perspective.
For instance, it was claimed, and still is often claimed "Cannabis
reduces
motivation". The notorious British pot writer Howard Marks replies
to this
in his book "Mr. Nice", as a very motivated trafficker and smoker of
marijuana in the 70s and 80s, that (I paraphrase) "when on
Cannabis, its
just very difficult to do the things you really don't want to do.
It's the
plants way of reminding us that we are free to pursue the things we
want to,
and if we're just more serious about being lazy enough, we can
probably
devise ways of securing our lives with less effort. But doing the
things we
like, Cannabis is a motivator. It's natural that somebody working
in an
job-environment exploiting them, will not want to work if they take
a couple
of puffs. I don't think they're demotivated, but if stagnation and
depression persists, they should probably relax more, reorient
their lives
to making a more enjoyable living, more easily. And if not they
should
forget Cannabis."
It also forces teens to become inventive with their laziness, as
they go
seek out liminal cracks between the edifices of civilization and
nature. The
places teenagers retreat to, when they get stoned: forest edges,
panoramic
vistas in nature, some magical hidden spot in a park. In the age of
getting
lost in Facebook and fancy mobile phones, this escapist behavior is
relatively benign, if not positive for development of mind.
Sure it can be dangerous when people get locked in their own
boredom and
don't pick up the sense of letting go of fixed ideals, to pursue
something
better; but mostly they do and relative to background of other
addictions
and the behavioral modifications they produce, the dangers are
relatively
small, and that a "cannabis ideology" paired with an open mind, is
one of
the few dependencies, that reverberate beyond personal satisfaction
and
create benefits for society, as all the books, poetry, art,
thinking, and
music it has inspired, are aimed at relaxing our fixations with
threats,
evils, making judgements and instead, chilling us out a bit. This
type of
dis-inhibition is more benign than alcohol.
I find media consumption, gambling, and nursing of the majority of
obsessions and fetishes to some form of "fixed ideal" people lock
themselves
up with, much more problematic. So yes, we agree on the prohibition
things,
that there are danger etc. but I thought it should be noted
equally, that
there are benefits for more than billionaires and rich people, and
that
these are not exceptional in any way. It's just not talked about
for obvious
reasons, even though we all benefit from the creative attitudes of
beatles,
stones, hendrix, or pink floyd etc. once in awhile.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on
something.
People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you
understand
what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is
nonsense. But
I don't think most understand what Cannabis entails because of
misinformation. To most people what Krokodil entails is the same as
Cannabis.
I let a singer songwriter make the point lacking in this thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKq9JvssB8
:)
Paraphrasing old Nietsche:
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be
asked not
to hit it at all.
To which I would add:
They should be asked to leave, or at least get out of the way.
I think we agree, OK? (or I miss something?).
Prohibition is exactly what makes information impossible. If all
drugs
were legal, Krokodil would never have appeared, and everybody
would know
that cannabis is less toxic (if toxic at all) compared to crack,
meth, and
krokodil (except it would not exist in that case).
If cannabis was not illegal, nobody would ever hide its many
medicinal
qualities.
The deep point is that food and drug is not the business of any
collectivity. People should be judged on the harm they do, not on
the
speculation that they might react in some way with some products.
Prohibition is dangerous as it kills democracy, notably.
Like the NDAA, fortunately suspended by the supreme court. It
would have
made possible to detain without trial, for arbitrary time anyone
belonging
to a fuzzy category of "suspects of threat", like if the human
rights were
not universal: it makes no sense to delimitate a class of people
to whom the
human rights and the constitutional right don't apply. Prohibition
and NDAA
belongs to the family of tyrannic technic to maintain anti-
democratic
powers.
Bruno
--
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/
--
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[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.
