For what its worth, I think that marijuana should be de-criminalized ASAP. Truly addictive narcotics and strong stimulants, such as cocain and meth probably should remain illegal as being very destructive to both individuals and society at large. Some controls for Pot and hallucinagens may be needed, i.e., not for sale/or use by minors.
I see no reason why society should accept, or excuse, most criminal activity. Commit a burglary, and pay the price. Betray the country and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Murder with special circumstances (for hire, by lying in wait, using explosive devices, or poison) are all good candidates for the most sever penalties. To put possession an ounce of Pot for personal use in the same category as armed robbery is silly and a perversion of justice. There is little reason to fill the prisons with inmates whose only crime is possession of small amounts of marijuana, some of whom will serve stiffer sentences than those how have committed rape or mayhem. On the other hand, those engaged in organizations profiting from the trade in illegal narcotics shouldn't be excused for their criminal behavior.
It seems that the preliminary sudies were quite positive.
0 Replies
Asherman
1
Reply
Thu 26 Aug, 2004 02:58 pm
You are correct. Early studies did seem to hold promise for treating a series of menta/emotional/addictive behavior problems. Unfortunately, the drug became wildly popular and carefully structured studies got lost in the shuffle. Small dosages in very controlled environments held a lot of promise. By the late 60's street people were dropping amazing amounts of acid, of varied purity and effect. The number of "bad trips" that ended in disaster seemed to skyrocket, and that was the end of that.
When LSD first hit the Hippy community in San Francisco it, and a number of other hallucinogens were still legal. At first, most the folks I knew took small doses, rarely over 50 micrograms. DMT was popular because it wore off so quickly. Acid could mess you up for several days, and couldn't effectively be taken without some time between trips ... usually at least 78 to 96 hours. Most people might drop acid only once every two or three months. As time went on, the Movement was flooded with teenyboppers, hangers-on, and predators. Drug usage went steeply up, along with dosages. You would never know what you were getting with street drugs, and the effects became ever more unpredictable.
I think perhaps new well-designed and conducted studies into the treatment possibilities of LSD might be useful. One of the things we "learned" is that acid is far too powerful to be self-administered in uncontrolled environments. I don't regret my own occasional use of the drug back when we were young. Of course, then cheap red wine was the drink of choice. Now I would prefer rare fine wines, and top quality single malts, if I were allowed to drink. If marijuana were legalized tomorrow, I'd be a customer.
0 Replies
extra medium
1
Reply
Thu 26 Aug, 2004 03:42 pm
A related question might be: Does immorality pay?
That is, there are many ways to make a lot of money that are technically legal, but which may be questionable by some people's standards.
Maybe I run a car company and know that there are a few relatively inexpensive changes I can make to a car model that will save lives, but refuse to do so because I desire to keep profits as high as possible. I have not broken any laws. But based on this decision, more money will ultimately flow into my pocket.
Or to take a simpler example: Perhaps I own an apartment building and raise the rent, which forces one of my tenants, an elderly lady, to move into a high crime neighborhood. She could afford $50 less than I am asking, but I refuse to keep it that low. I don't really need the money, but I want it. So I raise the rent and kick her out. I didn't break any laws. There's no rent control in my area.
My friends, etc. don't need to know about this. I can still keep all my friends, be a respected member of the community, etc. I may be haunted by my conscience. That seems to vary, depending on the individual.
Lets say you do nothing technically illegal, but you "gray area" hurt others with your decisions on your way to making as much money as possible.
Does immorality pay, in a financial sense?
On the whole, it appears that it does make good financial sense to be good to your neighbors.
However, it appears our society is full of people who broke no laws, but have gained wealth via less than honorable means. I am not saying all. I am saying there is a significant number out there in this group.
Does immorality pay?
0 Replies
Asherman
1
Reply
Thu 26 Aug, 2004 05:01 pm
When a person thinks, speaks, or behaves in ways that will reasonably add to the amount of suffering in this world, they pay a price. They may acquire wealth, prestige, and a certain amount of power in the process. Because they have broken no laws, they may live long lives and die leaving a large fortune. To accumulate that fortune, they had to be hard and thrifty. First generation wealth often isn't really enjoyed by those who pile it up. They are too busy acquiring to ever willingly spend the least of their resources. Their business practices may seem to some as "immoral", but they probably wouldn't agree. The second generation probably won't have to work so hard for their wealth, and so they are more likely to weigh their thoughts, words and actions against whatever standard of morality their group holds. Second generation wealth may still be obsessed with it, but may not want to end up like their parents/grandparents whose whole existence was devoted to material success. By the third generation, heirs are less likely to be Nuevo riche. Money and all that it brings with it are just the accepted way of the world. Third and fourth generation money is comfortable, and tends to live pretty well and responsibly. It never lasts. Eventually, wealth will result in an heir who is profligate. The born snob who thinks that because they are wealthy, they can do anything they want. Often that sort may flirt with crminality ... not for money, but because they can. They spend far more than the income from their inherited wealth, and in one lifetime the accumulated wealth of generations can be squandered.
I know a fellow of a prominent family that dates back to Colonial times. The family served honorably in all the nation's wars, and invested wisely. The family grew exceptional rich and was well-connected for 250 years. Then a boy (I'll call him "Joe" though that wasn't his name) was born who blew it all in less than 20 years. The kid wrecked half a dozen expensive new automobiles a year. Joe was a generous drunk who had an army of hangers-on. He had no interest in business, and his money managers became rich in direct proportion that the lad became poor. Cocaine parties and lavish living further depleted the family fortune. I lost track of Joe for about six years, but then one day came across him again by accident. He was dead broke, and all of his inherited possessions had shrunk to a couple of boxes of old books that had been in the family for a hundred years. His face was a mass of scars, but he was sober. I ask how he was getting along, and with a great smile of satisfaction and accomplishment he told me, "I'm working as an apprentice for a printer out in the Valley (San Fernando) who lets me sleep in the back of the shop". I was glad to hear that, for while the fellow had virtually wasted his life he had apparently taken control of it. He had wasted generations of effort in a few short years, but he was always one of the most likable people you might ever meet. I hope that life has been kind to "Joe".
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:32 am
it is necessary for an individual to 'buy in' to the social scam of wealth and power to be able to gain from crime; so the criminals are being just as conned by the system as the struggling, little, honest peons, when they think they've 'struck it rich'!
0 Replies
Asherman
1
Reply
Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:35 am
Actually, I think you have it backwards. Society doesn't "con" people into the desire to accumulate wealth and material success. It is the individual desire to build bulwarks against suffering for themselves and their families, that underpin workable societies. Wealth brings with it prestige (the envy of others). Perceived wealth is a potent symbol that one has prevailed in a continual and unending contest for basic resources. It can purchase leisure from endless physical toil, and amusements to fill time that otherwise might be spent in worry. Wealth may be used to "buy-off" threats, though it also attracts them.
People are motivated also to provide for their families, especially children. What parent doesn't want the world to be easier for the children than it was for them? If control of material resources can smooth the path, mitigate the suffering of our children, then the sacrifices we make seem justified. This is built into our genes, and into every human culture that has survived.
When human's try to construct social systems that run counter to those basic perceived needs, they always run into problems. To name the human impulse for acquisitiveness a "sin" doesn't stop it. Shame and guilt are used by social and religious institutions typically curb and minimize the socially destructive aspects of individuals pursuing their self-interests. This isn't necessarily "bad", it is necessary. Unrestrained pursuit of self-interest is terribly destructive of social structures, and is even counterproductive to the individual's effort to thwart suffering. Just because we can acquire great wealth, doesn't really mean that we defeat suffering, it just seems that way when we place "ourselves" at the center of the universe. When individuals come to understand that suffering can only be treated effectively on a broader field than making self-interest the highest priority and value, workable social structures can flourish. Only when we volunatarilly surrender some of our own self-interest to the group values like sharing, mercy, charity, and courage take on real meaning. By surrendering some of our individual freedom to the larger group we enhance our own well-being and self-interest. That is the essence and foundation for the rule of law and representative democracy. The group can accompish far more than any individual. The group is more secure against threats of all sorts, than the individual.
When the idealogy tries to deny self-interest by force, we get systems like Communism, Radical Islam, and Socialism. At best, these systems are scams to enrich minorities who divert wealth into their own pockets. At worst, they use extreme coercion to repress self-interest in the general populace. They always fail in the end for a number of reasons, but the fundamental reason that Utopian dreams fail is that they deny basic human motivations.
0 Replies
OCCOM BILL
1
Reply
Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:48 am
Cav, I don't know how you got Asherman to write so much... but whatever it was; keep doing it please.
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Fri 27 Aug, 2004 10:08 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cav, I don't know how you got Asherman to write so much... but whatever it was; keep doing it please.
I'm not sure either, but that is the beauty of it all, isn't it? I am still reading and thinking...
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 06:56 am
Asherman wrote:
When a person thinks, speaks, or behaves in ways that will reasonably add to the amount of suffering in this world, they pay a price. They may acquire wealth, prestige, and a certain amount of power in the process. Because they have broken no laws, they may live long lives and die leaving a large fortune. To accumulate that fortune, they had to be hard and thrifty. First generation wealth often isn't really enjoyed by those who pile it up. They are too busy acquiring to ever willingly spend the least of their resources. Their business practices may seem to some as "immoral", but they probably wouldn't agree. The second generation probably won't have to work so hard for their wealth, and so they are more likely to weigh their thoughts, words and actions against whatever standard of morality their group holds. Second generation wealth may still be obsessed with it, but may not want to end up like their parents/grandparents whose whole existence was devoted to material success. By the third generation, heirs are less likely to be Nuevo riche. Money and all that it brings with it are just the accepted way of the world. Third and fourth generation money is comfortable, and tends to live pretty well and responsibly. It never lasts. Eventually, wealth will result in an heir who is profligate. The born snob who thinks that because they are wealthy, they can do anything they want. Often that sort may flirt with crminality ... not for money, but because they can. They spend far more than the income from their inherited wealth, and in one lifetime the accumulated wealth of generations can be squandered.
I know a fellow of a prominent family that dates back to Colonial times. The family served honorably in all the nation's wars, and invested wisely. The family grew exceptional rich and was well-connected for 250 years. Then a boy (I'll call him "Joe" though that wasn't his name) was born who blew it all in less than 20 years. The kid wrecked half a dozen expensive new automobiles a year. Joe was a generous drunk who had an army of hangers-on. He had no interest in business, and his money managers became rich in direct proportion that the lad became poor. Cocaine parties and lavish living further depleted the family fortune. I lost track of Joe for about six years, but then one day came across him again by accident. He was dead broke, and all of his inherited possessions had shrunk to a couple of boxes of old books that had been in the family for a hundred years. His face was a mass of scars, but he was sober. I ask how he was getting along, and with a great smile of satisfaction and accomplishment he told me, "I'm working as an apprentice for a printer out in the Valley (San Fernando) who lets me sleep in the back of the shop". I was glad to hear that, for while the fellow had virtually wasted his life he had apparently taken control of it. He had wasted generations of effort in a few short years, but he was always one of the most likable people you might ever meet. I hope that life has been kind to "Joe".
This is a potent issue. "Wealth", as we know it in this society, equals "status", "acceptance", "a leg up", and I see no signs of the dominator culture doing anything to disuade people/voters from buying into this fantasy, one way or another. What is the solution? America is an outlaw country, it always has been. "Crime", defined either as illegal or legal, still pays in America. Oh to be an American lawyer, that pays too, but it would be morally corrupt, a crime.
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:21 am
Crime is a phenomenization of 'perception'; those who commit crimes, (except for a small group of psychopaths) do so in order to 'even' the dichotomy between the 'haves', and 'have nots', on a personal scale (with the possible exception of the Robin Hoods of the world, they seek to join the 'haves', not to even the balance!).
While there are very real values to the possession of sufficient affluence to avoid hunger, homelessness, and the constant apprehension that the spectre of being unable to provide for one's family raises; the quest for ever increasing wealth, and the amassing of 'things', are 'red herrings' that the consumer society perpetuates in order to continue functioning, on the cusp of 'greed'.
Mind you it is a case of the car driving the occupants; if waste, and conspicuous consumption were to be eliminated tomorrow, the economy would crash beyond the mess of the Great Depression, since it is 'riding the wave', and would be drowned by sensible practices.
While all this proceeds, crime is the oil that lubricates the 'status quo"; and skims the rich cream off the top to feed the needs of those addicted to excess.
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:25 am
Very good points. I see 'crime' and 'commerce' as an extremely blurred line in the sand, so to speak.
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:30 am
The duplicity is that, now that we have rendered ourselves unable to survive on our own resources, we need commerce to trade for the chattels of common life, but then commerce turns around, and stabs us in the back!
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:44 am
Maybe the 'civilized' world just opened up too many Banana Republics?
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 09:16 am
but never put bananas in the refrigerator; no, no, no, no!
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 09:17 am
Exactly. That starves the precious fruit of it's natural sugar....mmmm....sugar from somewhere else we don't care about.....
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Tue 31 Aug, 2004 09:22 am
Ah President's Choice - "Memories of Diabetes" pancake syrop!
[always listen to Chickita; and spell her properly, if you can!]
