Related: Heal, Pharma, Hermes
"'Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food.'" - Hippocrates.
All good foods, drugs and ointments come from local organisms but are dangerous when not used with care.
Capability is not enough when attempting to grow your own drugs. Drugs are kept artificially scarce for many reasons. Many people buy into the idea of moral decay, and believe that to allow choice is to allow evil.
Laterile - which is especially abundant in apricot pits is said to be a powerful cancer treatment.
maps.org/ibogaine >>People with problem substance use have found that psychedelic doses of ibogaine reduces withdrawal from opiates and eliminates substance-related cravings for a period of time.
Gates increases medical usury.
Mormon Tea, cocoa, coca, poppy, white horehound, valerian, coca, marajuana, chinese poppy, danish flag poppy, persian poppy, turkish blue poppy, woody nightshade, borage ,catmint, gotu kola, pennywort
Laterile - which is especially abundant in apricot pits is said to be a powerful cancer treatment.
narcosphere.narconews.com
csdp.org
mapinc.org
drugwarfacts.org
hempusflag.com
DrugPolicy.org/events/archive/conferences/ungass
pharmacratic-inquisition.com
tkfp.sourceforge.net
worldvista.sourceforge.net
linuxmednews.com
txoutcome.org Open Infrastructure for Outcomes (OIO)
chirad.info/imiaoswg IMIA Open Source Health Informatics Working Group (OSWG)
osni.info The Open Source Nursing Informatics (OSNI)
chirad.info/imiaoswg
medinfo2004.org
freemed.org
hardhats.org
resmedicinae.sourceforge.net
linudent.sourceforge.net Dental
ecgnosis.corlan.net Electrocardiognosis
oshca.org Open Source Health Care Alliance
patware:
>You claim the reason people do these things you disapprove of is to cover pain. That is not the only reason they are done. Often people do these things because they enjoy them. Your religion equates pleasure with sin, so such activity is abhorent to you.
coworker:
>>Actually, all of this comes from my own life, not from my religion. There is a difference between short term pleasure and long term joy. It's like the difference between eating candy all day long and then getting a stomach ache later versus eating healthy foods and feeling good later on. Of course there are short term things that we do to help us feel happy that aren't bad at all. The REAL issue is the "why" behind what we do. None of us have complete joy and so we seek it out. Sometimes we find some temporary joy that we go for even though deep down we know that it's not really going to help us in the long run.
Nobody's perfect.
>Even so, your claim is sometimes true. But isn't that what Prozac (a drug that has been shown to increase the likelyhood of suicide) does? Isn't that what video games, movies, comfort food, excessive exercise, overworking, etc.etc. etc. do?
>>Yes.
>Should we outlaw those activities? Should we outlaw sex without commitment? Why? Because you think it is bad? Because your god says it's bad?
>>Well, its effects are bad. They range from disease to unwanted children to a false sense of self-worth. All of these things have negative effects not only on the people involved but on society as a whole. That's just simple logic, not religion.
>Santorum would say such things should be illegal. How will this be enforced? Should we all be required to install cameras in our bedroom so our activities can be reviewed to determine if they fall within the bounds of this new legality? Should I be able to touch myself? What about my partner? Can they touch me? Where and how? If our government is supposedly an extension of ourselves, shouldn't we make laws that treat us the way we would treat ourselves? If your dad smoked a joint, would you make him sit in prison? What if your brother had sex without commitment? Should he be jailed and fined?
>>Those are difficult questions. I think we're more in agreement on these things than you realize. I don't want cameras everywhere, etc. It's easy to see that if I hit someone's nose that I've violated their rights and some of my rights are then taken away as a punishment for that. It's much more difficult to trace the effects of smoking a joint or submersing one's self in lust and so those things are generally not made into laws.
>What! Smoking a joint _is_ against the law. Thousands of people are jailed every year for possesion. Recreational drug use (please realize there is a difference between use and abuse) accounts for an amazing number of incarcerations. How is it beneficial to society to lock up these good citizens while you foot the bill? The War on Drugs propaganda would have you believe that smoking a joint adds to the problem of terrorism (nevermind the most successful terrorist group overthrew the US government in 2000). What they don't mention is that if we were allowed to grow our own, no traffiking would even need to occur.
>>I know that immersing one's self in lust (in whatever form) is progressive in nature and has caused the breakup of many families, which causes deep emotional damage on kids which cause many of them to go commit crime, have dysfunctional relationships of their own, etc. Sure, perhaps we should just make everything legal and let the negative side effects of those things run downhill until someone who has been affected by it enough goes out and kills someone or robs the liquor store, but there are valid reasons to put up a guardrail before it gets to that point. You don't let your kids play on the freeway even though the traffic is not that heavy. They really aren't doing anything wrong, right?
>I educate them about the ill effects of freeway play. I don't lock them in prison.
>But your analogy is broken. You equate the public (including me) with children that must be looked over by a parent (the gubment). I am not a child. Nor is any other citizen once they reach some age (15, 18, 21, whatever) that they can be considered intelligent enough to make their own decisions. After that age the individual should be able to make any decision on her own.
>You say "this affects society as a whole" as though my personal actions are harming you. explain to me how drinking whiskey harms you (you cannot use the "because you will drive and kill me" excuse because mixes two problems into one. It is not specific to consuming whiskey).
>>You get liver damage, the insurance company has to pay for your treatment and I get a bump in my own premiums to make up for it. Multiply that by thousands and it can have a large spread affect on society.
>Bullshit. Insurance is a crime. You choose to participate. If the insurance criminals charge you more than you think is fair, you should start a non profit, community owned insurance company where the funds are not stolen.
>Even if your claim was valid, obesity from poor nutrition (too much meat, sugar, artificial ingredients) is the primary health care cost in America. If we're going to outlaw something, it should be the propaganda fed by the corporations keeping us fat.
>Driving after not having enough sleep can be just as dangerous). Maybe you will say "because you will not be adding productively to society". But that doesn't make sense. If I find ways to become sustainable without external employment (grow my own food, use energy stable shelter) will you jail me as well? Besides, that only applies to some of the items on the 'bad things' list. Maybe you will say "because it is immoral, and damages the foundation of our society". if that's the case I ask "how do you determine the morality of something?" and "why must I conform to your interpretation of morality?" If I want to cut off my arm it is none of your business. If I want to eat red meat until I die, you should not have the power to stop me (though you should be able to stop the massively destructive (watershed pollution, rainforest destruction, methan pollution to name a few) practice of raising beef for this bloodthirsty nation). If I want to drive a motorcycle without a helmet it is only my business. If I want to watch soap operas and trash TV from dawn to dusk, that is my choice. I must have choice to be free. If I am not free to choose, what is freedom? Living under fear of an imaginary man? That is how the government uses religion against you.
>>I agree with you more closely on the politics side of this. I really don't think I want the government telling me what to do on my own. Religion and morality don't even have to enter the picture at all! It's just common sense and a little logic.
>The problem (and what i'm trying to address) is that the government has made and is making laws that force me to hide if I want to interact with another consenting adult in some particular way. Or if I want to consume a plant or chemical. Or if I want to act wrecklessly. These are victimless crimes (anyone harmed has consented to the harm), and should not be illegal. Should it be illegal to drive a motocycle? It's very dangerous. What about chopping wood. I might cut off my foot! How about dancing? What if I get too worked up, and have a heart attack? Should we be thrown in prison anytime we endanger ourselves? Why?
>You sometimes send links around from a libertarian kid. Here's a libertarian point of view on victimless crimes: http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/bsmith
>What if the country were smothered in another religion instead of christianity? What if this religion held that eating sugar was a sin. Should that morality be enforced by jailing those that grow sugarbeets? Why or why not?
>>Because I'm a part of society, I don't want to see it go down the tubes and I know that those things we've talked about will send it down the tubes - not because of religion or morality, but, again, because of common sense and simple logic.
>So you would vote to criminalize sugar use?
>>I don't think the "war on drugs" is being fought in the best way possible either. I have found that using drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) is a way for people to escape from reality and to feel good about bad things in their lives. Of course video games are too. There are different levels of escape, addiction, health problems, etc. It's not an easy question and the line is really more of a grey area.
>>Do you let your kids smoke pot? Why? Why not?
>The war on drugs is an utter failure except for the DEA, CIA, the druglords, and the multi-billion dollar prison industry. It is a crime against humanity. Why kill or imprison people that make that choice? Is it because you think they are addicted? Not all drug use is addiction. But even if someone is addicted, how is imprisoning them going to help? Why not spend all that money helping them to recover, and teaching them how to handle life?
>You are equating adult citizens with children. They are not the same. Adults (should) have sovereignty over their own bodies. I should be able to do _anything_ to my body of my choosing without any external consequence. ___ANYTHING___. I own my body. Not you. Not an imaginary man. Not an imaginary woman. Not an imaginary octopus. Not Shiva. Not Jesus. Not the gubment. ME! It infuriates me that my freedom has been stolen in this way. It is MY business! To those that uphold such invasive laws I say "STAY OUT OF MY LIFE!"
>I don't let my kids smoke pot because they are not old enough to make that decision. When they become old enough, I hope that my teaching them about the dangers of eating red meat, playing with matches, having casual sex, smoking pot, smoking tobacco, eating lots of sugar, sky diving, etc. will help them understand how to do those things responsibly, or to choose not to do them at all.
>Once my kids have access to each of these things they will have to make a decision. I cannot force them to not participate unless I lock them in a box as the US government does to adults that have the capacity to make their own decisions.
>If your dad smoked pot would you lock him in a box? If your 21 year old kid smoked pot would you lock her in a box? If your 10 year old smoked pot would you lock him in a box? Don't you think education is a better deterrent?
>Will you force your children to obey? Isn't that the plan of your imaginary man in the ground? How will anyone learn about dangerous things if we are misinformed (or disallowed to even discuss them - as is sometimes the case with sexual education) and then imprisoned?
>some thoughts from noforce.org:
"'89% of drug defendants are convicted.
Drug case sentences average 73.9 months
Weapons case sentences average 87.3 months
More than 80% of drug law violation arrests are for mere possession, and have been since at least 1982.
In what way does possession, or manufacture, or transport, of a substance cause harm?
Does the SALE of a substance cause harm to someone? If it does, it would be the buyer, wouldn't it, and the buyer is asking to purchase the substance. There is no victim, and no crime involved... which is why our laws have been designed to punish everyone involved. It wouldn't be fair to pick on just one innocent party, would it?
Polls show that 80% of Americans now support legalization of medical marijuana, and an ever-growing number of states are passing such legislation in spite of federal laws to the contrary. That shows that the American people are wiser than their federal representatives, and that the War on Drugs is fading, but it's still destroying people every day that we put up with it.
We're spending at least $50 billion each year on consensual crime. We're losing an estimated $150 billion in lost taxes. $200 billion would cut the income tax load by one-third... just by decriminalizing consensual crimes.
Even aside from the wrongheadedness of criminalizing consensual behavior, and the economic disaster, there are many other negatives:
* Lives are simply destroyed, including family members of prisoners.
* Criminalizing consensual activities drives up the cost, which causes real crimes.
* When so many activities that don't seem wrong are criminal, we all lose respect for the law.
* Consensual crime loads are diverting police, courts, and prisons away from real crimes.
* When consensual crime is criminal, it invites organized crime activities.
* When the law tries to protect us from ourselves, it falsely implies that legal activities are safe.
* Complete enforcement is impossible, so it's arbitrary and unfair.
* Morality laws are majoritarian, so they discriminate against minorities and the poor.
* Criminalization prevents people from seeking help for addictions.
'" -- NoForce.org
Related: Heal, Pharma, Hermes
"'Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food.'" - Hippocrates.
All good foods, drugs and ointments come from local organisms but are dangerous when not used with care.
Capability is not enough when attempting to grow your own drugs. Drugs are kept artificially scarce for many reasons. Many people buy into the idea of moral decay, and believe that to allow choice is to allow evil.
Laterile - which is especially abundant in apricot pits is said to be a powerful cancer treatment.
maps.org/ibogaine >>People with problem substance use have found that psychedelic doses of ibogaine reduces withdrawal from opiates and eliminates substance-related cravings for a period of time.
Gates increases medical usury.
Mormon Tea, cocoa, coca, poppy, white horehound, valerian, coca, marajuana, chinese poppy, danish flag poppy, persian poppy, turkish blue poppy, woody nightshade, borage ,catmint, gotu kola, pennywort
Laterile - which is especially abundant in apricot pits is said to be a powerful cancer treatment.
narcosphere.narconews.com
csdp.org
mapinc.org
drugwarfacts.org
hempusflag.com
DrugPolicy.org/events/archive/conferences/ungass
pharmacratic-inquisition.com
tkfp.sourceforge.net
worldvista.sourceforge.net
linuxmednews.com
txoutcome.org Open Infrastructure for Outcomes (OIO)
chirad.info/imiaoswg IMIA Open Source Health Informatics Working Group (OSWG)
osni.info The Open Source Nursing Informatics (OSNI)
chirad.info/imiaoswg
medinfo2004.org
freemed.org
hardhats.org
resmedicinae.sourceforge.net
linudent.sourceforge.net Dental
ecgnosis.corlan.net Electrocardiognosis
oshca.org Open Source Health Care Alliance
patware:
>You claim the reason people do these things you disapprove of is to cover pain. That is not the only reason they are done. Often people do these things because they enjoy them. Your religion equates pleasure with sin, so such activity is abhorent to you.
coworker:
>>Actually, all of this comes from my own life, not from my religion. There is a difference between short term pleasure and long term joy. It's like the difference between eating candy all day long and then getting a stomach ache later versus eating healthy foods and feeling good later on. Of course there are short term things that we do to help us feel happy that aren't bad at all. The REAL issue is the "why" behind what we do. None of us have complete joy and so we seek it out. Sometimes we find some temporary joy that we go for even though deep down we know that it's not really going to help us in the long run.
Nobody's perfect.
>Even so, your claim is sometimes true. But isn't that what Prozac (a drug that has been shown to increase the likelyhood of suicide) does? Isn't that what video games, movies, comfort food, excessive exercise, overworking, etc.etc. etc. do?
>>Yes.
>Should we outlaw those activities? Should we outlaw sex without commitment? Why? Because you think it is bad? Because your god says it's bad?
>>Well, its effects are bad. They range from disease to unwanted children to a false sense of self-worth. All of these things have negative effects not only on the people involved but on society as a whole. That's just simple logic, not religion.
>Santorum would say such things should be illegal. How will this be enforced? Should we all be required to install cameras in our bedroom so our activities can be reviewed to determine if they fall within the bounds of this new legality? Should I be able to touch myself? What about my partner? Can they touch me? Where and how? If our government is supposedly an extension of ourselves, shouldn't we make laws that treat us the way we would treat ourselves? If your dad smoked a joint, would you make him sit in prison? What if your brother had sex without commitment? Should he be jailed and fined?
>>Those are difficult questions. I think we're more in agreement on these things than you realize. I don't want cameras everywhere, etc. It's easy to see that if I hit someone's nose that I've violated their rights and some of my rights are then taken away as a punishment for that. It's much more difficult to trace the effects of smoking a joint or submersing one's self in lust and so those things are generally not made into laws.
>What! Smoking a joint _is_ against the law. Thousands of people are jailed every year for possesion. Recreational drug use (please realize there is a difference between use and abuse) accounts for an amazing number of incarcerations. How is it beneficial to society to lock up these good citizens while you foot the bill? The War on Drugs propaganda would have you believe that smoking a joint adds to the problem of terrorism (nevermind the most successful terrorist group overthrew the US government in 2000). What they don't mention is that if we were allowed to grow our own, no traffiking would even need to occur.
>>I know that immersing one's self in lust (in whatever form) is progressive in nature and has caused the breakup of many families, which causes deep emotional damage on kids which cause many of them to go commit crime, have dysfunctional relationships of their own, etc. Sure, perhaps we should just make everything legal and let the negative side effects of those things run downhill until someone who has been affected by it enough goes out and kills someone or robs the liquor store, but there are valid reasons to put up a guardrail before it gets to that point. You don't let your kids play on the freeway even though the traffic is not that heavy. They really aren't doing anything wrong, right?
>I educate them about the ill effects of freeway play. I don't lock them in prison.
>But your analogy is broken. You equate the public (including me) with children that must be looked over by a parent (the gubment). I am not a child. Nor is any other citizen once they reach some age (15, 18, 21, whatever) that they can be considered intelligent enough to make their own decisions. After that age the individual should be able to make any decision on her own.
>You say "this affects society as a whole" as though my personal actions are harming you. explain to me how drinking whiskey harms you (you cannot use the "because you will drive and kill me" excuse because mixes two problems into one. It is not specific to consuming whiskey).
>>You get liver damage, the insurance company has to pay for your treatment and I get a bump in my own premiums to make up for it. Multiply that by thousands and it can have a large spread affect on society.
>Bullshit. Insurance is a crime. You choose to participate. If the insurance criminals charge you more than you think is fair, you should start a non profit, community owned insurance company where the funds are not stolen.
>Even if your claim was valid, obesity from poor nutrition (too much meat, sugar, artificial ingredients) is the primary health care cost in America. If we're going to outlaw something, it should be the propaganda fed by the corporations keeping us fat.
>Driving after not having enough sleep can be just as dangerous). Maybe you will say "because you will not be adding productively to society". But that doesn't make sense. If I find ways to become sustainable without external employment (grow my own food, use energy stable shelter) will you jail me as well? Besides, that only applies to some of the items on the 'bad things' list. Maybe you will say "because it is immoral, and damages the foundation of our society". if that's the case I ask "how do you determine the morality of something?" and "why must I conform to your interpretation of morality?" If I want to cut off my arm it is none of your business. If I want to eat red meat until I die, you should not have the power to stop me (though you should be able to stop the massively destructive (watershed pollution, rainforest destruction, methan pollution to name a few) practice of raising beef for this bloodthirsty nation). If I want to drive a motorcycle without a helmet it is only my business. If I want to watch soap operas and trash TV from dawn to dusk, that is my choice. I must have choice to be free. If I am not free to choose, what is freedom? Living under fear of an imaginary man? That is how the government uses religion against you.
>>I agree with you more closely on the politics side of this. I really don't think I want the government telling me what to do on my own. Religion and morality don't even have to enter the picture at all! It's just common sense and a little logic.
>The problem (and what i'm trying to address) is that the government has made and is making laws that force me to hide if I want to interact with another consenting adult in some particular way. Or if I want to consume a plant or chemical. Or if I want to act wrecklessly. These are victimless crimes (anyone harmed has consented to the harm), and should not be illegal. Should it be illegal to drive a motocycle? It's very dangerous. What about chopping wood. I might cut off my foot! How about dancing? What if I get too worked up, and have a heart attack? Should we be thrown in prison anytime we endanger ourselves? Why?
>You sometimes send links around from a libertarian kid. Here's a libertarian point of view on victimless crimes: http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/bsmith
>What if the country were smothered in another religion instead of christianity? What if this religion held that eating sugar was a sin. Should that morality be enforced by jailing those that grow sugarbeets? Why or why not?
>>Because I'm a part of society, I don't want to see it go down the tubes and I know that those things we've talked about will send it down the tubes - not because of religion or morality, but, again, because of common sense and simple logic.
>So you would vote to criminalize sugar use?
>>I don't think the "war on drugs" is being fought in the best way possible either. I have found that using drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) is a way for people to escape from reality and to feel good about bad things in their lives. Of course video games are too. There are different levels of escape, addiction, health problems, etc. It's not an easy question and the line is really more of a grey area.
>>Do you let your kids smoke pot? Why? Why not?
>The war on drugs is an utter failure except for the DEA, CIA, the druglords, and the multi-billion dollar prison industry. It is a crime against humanity. Why kill or imprison people that make that choice? Is it because you think they are addicted? Not all drug use is addiction. But even if someone is addicted, how is imprisoning them going to help? Why not spend all that money helping them to recover, and teaching them how to handle life?
>You are equating adult citizens with children. They are not the same. Adults (should) have sovereignty over their own bodies. I should be able to do _anything_ to my body of my choosing without any external consequence. ___ANYTHING___. I own my body. Not you. Not an imaginary man. Not an imaginary woman. Not an imaginary octopus. Not Shiva. Not Jesus. Not the gubment. ME! It infuriates me that my freedom has been stolen in this way. It is MY business! To those that uphold such invasive laws I say "STAY OUT OF MY LIFE!"
>I don't let my kids smoke pot because they are not old enough to make that decision. When they become old enough, I hope that my teaching them about the dangers of eating red meat, playing with matches, having casual sex, smoking pot, smoking tobacco, eating lots of sugar, sky diving, etc. will help them understand how to do those things responsibly, or to choose not to do them at all.
>Once my kids have access to each of these things they will have to make a decision. I cannot force them to not participate unless I lock them in a box as the US government does to adults that have the capacity to make their own decisions.
>If your dad smoked pot would you lock him in a box? If your 21 year old kid smoked pot would you lock her in a box? If your 10 year old smoked pot would you lock him in a box? Don't you think education is a better deterrent?
>Will you force your children to obey? Isn't that the plan of your imaginary man in the ground? How will anyone learn about dangerous things if we are misinformed (or disallowed to even discuss them - as is sometimes the case with sexual education) and then imprisoned?
>some thoughts from noforce.org:
"'89% of drug defendants are convicted.
Drug case sentences average 73.9 months
Weapons case sentences average 87.3 months
More than 80% of drug law violation arrests are for mere possession, and have been since at least 1982.
In what way does possession, or manufacture, or transport, of a substance cause harm?
Does the SALE of a substance cause harm to someone? If it does, it would be the buyer, wouldn't it, and the buyer is asking to purchase the substance. There is no victim, and no crime involved... which is why our laws have been designed to punish everyone involved. It wouldn't be fair to pick on just one innocent party, would it?
Polls show that 80% of Americans now support legalization of medical marijuana, and an ever-growing number of states are passing such legislation in spite of federal laws to the contrary. That shows that the American people are wiser than their federal representatives, and that the War on Drugs is fading, but it's still destroying people every day that we put up with it.
We're spending at least $50 billion each year on consensual crime. We're losing an estimated $150 billion in lost taxes. $200 billion would cut the income tax load by one-third... just by decriminalizing consensual crimes.
Even aside from the wrongheadedness of criminalizing consensual behavior, and the economic disaster, there are many other negatives:
* Lives are simply destroyed, including family members of prisoners.
* Criminalizing consensual activities drives up the cost, which causes real crimes.
* When so many activities that don't seem wrong are criminal, we all lose respect for the law.
* Consensual crime loads are diverting police, courts, and prisons away from real crimes.
* When consensual crime is criminal, it invites organized crime activities.
* When the law tries to protect us from ourselves, it falsely implies that legal activities are safe.
* Complete enforcement is impossible, so it's arbitrary and unfair.
* Morality laws are majoritarian, so they discriminate against minorities and the poor.
* Criminalization prevents people from seeking help for addictions.
'" -- NoForce.org