|
Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sunday, June 9, 2024, FreedomRocks via <HomeOfLove69= [email protected]> wrote: <<Are you arguing that if X percent of people disobey a law, it's a bad law? Or are you arguing that if the cost of enforcing a law is higher than Y, the law should be eliminated? Or you arguing that if Z percent of people want to do something, they should be allowed to do it?>>
No, my main argument is that adults should be able to make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If an adult wants to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, eat high fat foods, or anything else, that should be their right as an adult. If health insurance wants to charge them higher premiums, they can (and currently do with smoking tobacco.) If they commit crimes while under the influence of marijuana or drinking alcohol, then that should not be accepted in any way as an excuse for the crimes they committed. I was not clear about this in my original posting.
But unfortunately, we live in a society where busybodies want to control other people’s decisions, even though those decisions have no bearing on their own life. That is why I offered the secondary argument for busybodies, who don’t care about people’s freedom or independence, that making marijuana illegal does directly affect their lives in the various ways I mentioned (where as marijuana being legal does not affect their lives.) ? Rhonda
|
? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct. ?Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made. ?If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 9, 2024, at 19:18, FreedomRocks <HomeOfLove69@...> wrote:
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
<<You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct. ?Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made. ?If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?>>
Well to be clear, laws are made because *lawmakers* feel there is a need for the law….and their decision for that may or may not be based on what the great majority feel.
And I disagree that laws for murder and stealing would make little sense, if the great majority of St. Louisans were murderers and thieves, there would still be laws against murder and stealing, because murderers and thieves don’t like it when other people steal from them of kill them. The laws may be poorly enforced, or more narrowly defined, but they would still exist. ?(I changed the city, since St. Louis is the #1 city for murder in the US, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10.)
Rhonda
|
David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
// ? ? What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.? ? //
That touches on the question what passes for reality. ?Among the thousands of things that I accept as true (provisionally but pragmatically), my attitude to only a few is based personal experience. ?We "know" most of what we assume we know only because we were told it was true by people whom we regard as reliable authorities. ?I wonder how many of the people who regularly follow "the news" to learn of what's happening in the world beyond their physical ken believe it. ?I'd guess that most do. ?If that's the case, the news media have the ability to confect reality out of thin air.
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 10, 2024, at 08:21, Darrell King via groups.io <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
? David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
D
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
Ed
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Absolutely, David. Hitler harnessed propaganda to create his powerhouse war machine. The Allies harnessed propaganda?to create the evil villain?Hitler has become in public tradition. Our culture has evolved these processes until the media weaves realities for millions, driven by money and political power opportunities.
Again, I feel we could?fight back by valuing thinking skills and practicing healthy decision-making, yet the lure of immediate over delayed gratification is an embedded and significant hurdle!
D
// ? ? What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.? ? //
That touches on the question what passes for reality.? Among the thousands of things that I accept as true (provisionally but pragmatically), my attitude to only a few is based personal experience.? We "know" most of what we assume we know only because we were told it was true by people whom we regard as reliable authorities.? I wonder how many of the people who regularly follow "the news" to learn of what's happening in the world beyond their physical ken believe it.? I'd guess that most do.? If that's the case, the news media have the ability to confect reality out of thin air.
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
" I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?" -Darrel
I have mixed feelings about all that as well.? They say that alcoholics don't recover until they hot bottom, but that's like observing that a lost object is always found in the last place you look.
I never tried illegal drugs because I feared that I might get hooked, given my propensity to get obsessed with certain behaviors (I have been a runner since high school).? If it wasn't for hangovers, I might be an alcoholic.?
A friend just completed a drug rehab program, but I'm skeptical of whether it will succeed because some of his ?relatives are heavy drug users and aren't supportive of his efforts.
On Monday, June 17, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
D
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
Ed
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= gmail.com@groups.io> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
?
There is no difference between the current news sources and propaganda - the only question is which side is pushing the propaganda.
Marvin
?
Absolutely, David. Hitler harnessed propaganda to create his powerhouse war machine. The Allies harnessed propaganda?to create the evil villain?Hitler has become in public tradition. Our culture has evolved these processes until the media weaves realities for millions, driven by money and political power opportunities.
?
Again, I feel we could?fight back by valuing thinking skills and practicing healthy decision-making, yet the lure of immediate over delayed gratification is an embedded and significant hurdle!
D
?
?
// ? ? What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.? ? //
?
That touches on the question what passes for reality.? Among the thousands of things that I accept as true (provisionally but pragmatically), my attitude to only a few is based personal experience.? We "know" most of what we assume we know only because we were told it was true by people whom we regard as reliable authorities.? I wonder how many of the people who regularly follow "the news" to learn of what's happening in the world beyond their physical ken believe it.? I'd guess that most do.? If that's the case, the news media have the ability to confect reality out of thin air.
?
?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
?
?
?
?
On Jun 10, 2024, at 08:21, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing=[email protected]> wrote:
?
?
?
David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "?
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
?
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
?
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
?
D
?
?
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
?
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
?
?
?
?
?
<<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards.
?
Rhonda
?
?
?
?
?
|
?
I tried being an alcoholic in college - ended up building an 11' flat bottom boat in the dorm lounge to stay sober.
Learned my lesson - and very seldom ever overindulged again.
Marvin
" I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?" -Darrel
?
I have mixed feelings about all that as well.? They say that alcoholics don't recover until they hot bottom, but that's like observing that a lost object is always found in the last place you look.
?
I never tried illegal drugs because I feared that I might get hooked, given my propensity to get obsessed with certain behaviors (I have been a runner since high school).? If it wasn't for hangovers, I might be an alcoholic.?
?
A friend just completed a drug rehab program, but I'm skeptical of whether it will succeed because some of his ?relatives are heavy drug users and aren't supportive of his efforts.
?
I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
?
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
?
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
?
D
?
?
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
?
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
?
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
?
Ed
?
?
?
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
?
David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "?
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
?
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
?
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
?
D
?
?
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
?
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
?
?
?
?
?
<<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards.
?
Rhonda
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
|
Yah, people of all varieties are easily gulled. ?I doubt that teaching "thinking skills" would make the slightest difference. ?Learning to think logically is not the problem.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 17, 2024, at 08:27, Darrell King <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
? Absolutely, David. Hitler harnessed propaganda to create his powerhouse war machine. The Allies harnessed propaganda?to create the evil villain?Hitler has become in public tradition. Our culture has evolved these processes until the media weaves realities for millions, driven by money and political power opportunities.
Again, I feel we could?fight back by valuing thinking skills and practicing healthy decision-making, yet the lure of immediate over delayed gratification is an embedded and significant hurdle!
D
// ? ? What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.? ? //
That touches on the question what passes for reality.? Among the thousands of things that I accept as true (provisionally but pragmatically), my attitude to only a few is based personal experience.? We "know" most of what we assume we know only because we were told it was true by people whom we regard as reliable authorities.? I wonder how many of the people who regularly follow "the news" to learn of what's happening in the world beyond their physical ken believe it.? I'd guess that most do.? If that's the case, the news media have the ability to confect reality out of thin air.
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Far better to educate young people to be virtuous than to pick them up off the street when they're not. ?But in a culture based on relativism, in which the meaning of "virtuous" can have no clear and stable meaning, that's impossible.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 17, 2024, at 08:39, Ed Lomas <relomas2@...> wrote:
?" I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?" -Darrel
I have mixed feelings about all that as well.? They say that alcoholics don't recover until they hot bottom, but that's like observing that a lost object is always found in the last place you look.
I never tried illegal drugs because I feared that I might get hooked, given my propensity to get obsessed with certain behaviors (I have been a runner since high school).? If it wasn't for hangovers, I might be an alcoholic.?
A friend just completed a drug rehab program, but I'm skeptical of whether it will succeed because some of his ?relatives are heavy drug users and aren't supportive of his efforts.
Ed
On Monday, June 17, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
D
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
Ed
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= gmail.com@groups.io> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
FreedomRocks
David Smith