Natalia wrote: > Hey, Big Brother, may be you can control religion and spirituality > electronically too. Those are mind destroying, right?
Depends. The predator class will be dealt with separately. > What you propose, in too many ways, is simply another form of fascism. > Well intended, but oppressive nonetheless. Fascism is corporate government -- I suggested nothing of that sort. Which corporations would gain from rooting out drugs? Quite the opposite. If anything is oppressive, it is addictions that the victim can't break free from. Look at the situation of today's youth -- destroying their brains with alco-pops, more cigarettes than ever (also the girls), dope, ecstasy, mushrooms, you name it. They can't even get a whole phrase together. WHAT CAN BE WORSE THAN THIS ? > But your approach, not yet clearly and systematically outlined, has barely > been touched upon. I do recall that from my point of view it failed to get > at the root cause of drug consumption, which is usually going to be foun > in untoward domestic, social and environmental upbringing. Usually years > of psychological/sexual/physical abuse, as I tried so hard to get through > to you before, cannot be addressed by simple physical answers. The problem > lies in the mind that tells the body what to do. Biochemical imbalances in the brain have very much to do with behavior. And you know well that many of the domestic batterers are alcoholics. > But you missed [Keith's] point with respect to the widespread use of > illegal drugs in the upper classes. He didn't say they were all addicts, > or users. He was saying that inspite of the popularity of cocaine, users > are not necessarily dysfunctional as a result of taking it, and that they > seem to put it aside when required. The overall point made was that most > people will not become addicted to recreational drugs, only a small > percentage If cocaine "merely" turns these powerful people into sociopaths, isn't that bad enough? Just look at Dubya. > | Then why is there a 0.5% limit on blood alcohol for motorists in Europe? > > | ****Strawman!!!(Thanks for teaching me that one) Evasive!!!You never > address this one, Chris. The world's biggest addiction, and you selectively > avoid it like the plague. Of course I addressed that one. But what do you want -- if I don't mention alcohol explicitly, you complain I ignore it; if I ban alcohol, you complain that it can't be banned because it's "part of the culture". Yeah, tell that to the American Natives whose culture was destroyed with alcohol... > but you can't take sugars and other foods out of the cultures. Ahemm... refined sugar and white flour didn't exist before the 19th century, and it has ruined the teeth of all native peoples who got in contact since then. Read Weston Price... You can't take cannibalism, slavery and sexual mutilation out of the cultures either, can you? I mean, it's a very old tradition in some... > My point was, who, amongst the alcoholic, or even merely social drinkers, > would not be in jail or in treatment programs, to support the > infrastructure, to perform dentistry and veterinary and medical operations? "Social drinkers" wouldn't be drinkers because there's no alcohol left around, and since you said they're not addicted, that's no problem, is it? _Social_ drinkers can drink apple juice too, can't they? As far as alcohol is concerned, "social drinker" is an oxymoron -- the behavior turns pretty anti-social. Tell a rape victim the rapist was a _social_ drinker! Alcoholics would be in treatment programs, which doesn't mean they can't work in their professions -- quite on the contrary, treated alcoholics can work much better... I hope you don't want drunk pilots and surgeons? Ah, no, you merely want stoned pilots and surgeons... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
