M_P  wrote:

>> >LOL! *You're* the one who just now deleted the substantive content.
>>
>> I didn't "delete" anything.  The previous posts are still there.
>
>Feeble wordplay.


Oh, that's rich.  You're the one who complains that I snipped very old
quoting that you then claim you didn't get the chance to substantively
reply to!  Idiot.  I had given up on you doing so, because you
obviously never will.  You had your chance before any of the quoting
I've left above.  God, you are a nerd.


>> Excessive quoting is bad form.
>
>Insufficient quoting is evasive.


Which is why *I DON'T DO THAT*.  I have quoted the appropriate amount,
religiously.  Yet you complain!


>> But you're the one who still didn't reply to the substantive content.
>
>Wrong again.


You may have finally done so later in this post, but it certainly took
a while to get there.


>> I already made it clear I'm not going to waste my breath on it.
>
>ROTFL! You've already spent several times as much "breath" on
>pretending you know something as it would take to say what you knew
>(if you knew anything).


No, I haven't.  I simply haven't let you get the last word.


>> >You have yet to establish that there's anything to know. Who do you
>> >think you're impressing with these pretensions to knowledge?
>>
>> How much do you think I give a shit?
>
>Enough to keep posting with your pretenses but no actual knowledge.


Again, nonsense.


>> >You mean you "moved on" from clear unambiguous writing. And you
>> >consider that progress?
>>
>> Quite correct.  Absolutely.  Except that my writing is clear and
>> unambiguous, if your brain doesn't fall apart while reading it.  If it
>> does, that's hardly my fault.  I'm just smarter than you.
>
>Wrong as usual ... read on.


Nice try ... read on.


>OK, I'll spoonfeed you: in "they merely forced people to buy LSD
>illegally even though they could easily do so" the second "they" could
>refer either to government (the first "they") or to "people" and the
>"so" could refer either to "buy LSD illegally" or to "force people to
>buy LSD illegally".


THAT IS YOUR BRAIN FALLING APART.  You see, NERD, I expect people to
be adult enough to just realize what the "theys" meant.  You are such
an idiot if you think it's ambiguous, it's not even funny.  But I know
why you're claiming it.  You like to play games and be a stupid little
nerd.  I BEAT UP NERDS!

I don't even need to specifically refute why you're wrong.  If anyone
doesn't get it, they are fucking retarded.


>> >> "the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"
>>
>> >Wrong as usual. That was merely the least insane remaining alternative
>> >after protection was ruled out.
>>
>> It was all you said!  Good God, go back and read your first reply in
>> the thread.  It was quite short.
>
>I also said the part you replaced with "..." above -- which was in
>fact the meat of my statement.


Yeah, but that part was irrelevant, as I already said.  Grow a dick.


>> >> It is laughable that people still take the '60s so damn seriously.
>> >> LSD is not without significance, to be sure, but it didn't have all
>> >> that much to do with progress, and your implication had to be that the
>> >> government felt there was something socially "dangerous" about it.
>>
>> >If you have a better explanation, now's the time.
>>
>> I certainly do.  The congress, and the DEA, have shown a very clear
>> pattern with regard to recreational drugs.  Once it reaches a certain
>> prevalence, it's banned.  It happened then with LSD, and in the '80s
>> with MDMA, and in recent times with some of the research chemicals.
>> It's about consistency with pot being illegal, as much as it is about
>> the recreational use of these drugs themselves (except for something
>> like 2C-T-7, which caused deaths).
>
>Even if you could establish that as a tenable account -- and to do
>that you'd have to show that the drugs you mention were in fact each
>banned at the same prevalence --


OH MY GOD!  You are SO PEDANTIC!  You can't quit!  Oh my good lord in
heaven.  It's *comparable* prevalence!  It is!  It is!  If you don't
know that, you are wayyy beneath my level on drug knowledge, and you
can go educate yourself.  Especially with a 'tude the size of yours,
nerd.


> you'd still have an account that as
>it stands is completely consistent with coercive conformism.


No, it isn't.  I already pointed out that people could easily buy LSD
illicitly.  It's an unenforceable law, so there's no coercion.


>> Of course, they can never overcome the inconsistency with alcohol
>> being legal, so it's just more typical American redneck fascist
>> bullshit (on the surface, which is the element we're discussing here).
>
>"Redneck fascist bullshit" differs from "coercive conformism" how?


Because rednecks are stupid enough to think they can tell everyone
what to do.  Then they wonder why so many "criminals" disobey their
loudmouth redneck cracker asses.  This law is a joke.


>> >No it doesn't; you made two claims in one sentence, one of which ("I'm
>> >secure in my own ability to withstand personal attacks") I have no
>> >problem with, so I addressed only the other one.
>>
>> They are interrelated.  Didn't you ever take calculus?  I make these
>> attacks with the expectation that it will draw fire on me, but I am
>> confident in my ability to reason in such an adversarial format.
>
>Personal attacks are antithetical to reason.


Aww, cry me a river.


>> I
>> therefore expect my opponents to be comfortable with it, as well,
>> because I prefer arguing with people who are on my level.
>
>I.e. in the gutter.


I'd rather be in the gutter than be wrong, like you.


>> I'm on the
>> fence, as far as you go, in that regard.  You've shown a decent
>> ability,
>
>I hope not.
>
>> but a lack of intellectual honesty.
>
>Bullshit.


Lol.  Aww.

-- 
Joel Crump

Sig Nature  wrote:

>> I BEAT UP NERDS!
>
>You beat up yaself?
>
>Show me wut you working with, yo!


You know damn well I'm not a nerd in that sense.

-- 
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:
> Sig Nature  wrote:
> 
>>>  I BEAT UP NERDS!
>> You beat up yaself?
>>
>> Show me wut you working with, yo!
> 
> 
> You know damn well I'm not a nerd in that sense.
> 

	Denial ain't only a River, Mr.Crump.


     later
     bliss

-- 
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

     Ningen banji          Human beings do
     Samazama no           Every single kind
     Baka a suru           Of stupid thing
         --- 117th edition of Haifu Yanagidaru published in 1832

bobbie sellers  wrote:

>> You know damn well I'm not a nerd in that sense.
>
>	Denial ain't only a River, Mr.Crump.


Ha, coming from your delusional ass, that's pretty funny.

-- 
Joel Crump

M_P  wrote:

>> >> I didn't "delete" anything.  The previous posts are still there.
>>
>> >Feeble wordplay.
>>
>> Oh, that's rich.  You're the one who complains that I snipped very old
>> quoting that you then claim you didn't get the chance to substantively
>> reply to!  Idiot. […]
>
>I never claim you didn't get the chance to substantively reply to it.
>Cretin.


Pedantic.


>> >Insufficient quoting is evasive.
>>
>> Which is why *I DON'T DO THAT*.  I have quoted the appropriate amount,
>> religiously.  […]
>
>No, you leave out substantive content and quote your silly
>squabblings.


Liar.


>> >ROTFL! You've already spent several times as much "breath" on
>> >pretending you know something as it would take to say what you knew
>> >(if you knew anything).
>>
>> No, I haven't. […]
>
>"Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
>reason for it being banned, but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
>about it, so never mind. [...] The words "never mind" are there for a
>reason. If you need evidence, that's exactly why you don't know about
>it, kiddo. [...] I already made it clear I'm not going to waste my
>breath on it."
>
>That's a lot of breath.


As if I'm gonna let you get the last word and distort what I did?
Don't be so juvenilely pedantic.


>> THAT IS YOUR BRAIN FALLING APART.  You see, NERD, I expect people to
>> be adult enough to just realize what the "theys" meant.  You are such
>> an idiot if you think it's ambiguous,
>
>It is, as I've shown with the deconstruction you requested. Deal with
>it.


Wrong.  It's obvious in the context of the sentence what the last
"they" refers to.  You just don't have a strong enough brain to read
hardcore writing.  You're a mental pansy.  And a God damn liar,
anyway.  I don't believe you really find it ambiguous.  You don't seem
that stupid.


>> I don't even need to specifically refute why you're wrong.  If anyone
>> doesn't get it, they are fucking retarded.
>[…]
>> If you don't
>> know that, you are wayyy beneath my level on drug knowledge, and you
>> can go educate yourself.
>
>Coward.


As if you've presented anything big to support your points?  Please.


>> >I also said the part you replaced with "..." above -- which was in
>> >fact the meat of my statement.
>>
>> Yeah, but that part was irrelevant, as I already said.
>
>As you already claimed without a shred of support.


The "..." part said what you believe is *not* the reason it was
banned.  Hence I wasn't very interested in discussing it, since I more
or less agree with that.  *DUH*.


>> > you'd still have an account that as
>> >it stands is completely consistent with coercive conformism.
>>
>> No, it isn't.  I already pointed out that people could easily buy LSD
>> illicitly.  It's an unenforceable law, so there's no coercion.
>
>Nonsense. Anyone punished under that law is coerced.


Most LSD busts are of dealers, not users.  It's a lot easier to get
away with eating a little piece of paper than smoking a joint.


>> >"Redneck fascist bullshit" differs from "coercive conformism" how?
>>
>> Because rednecks are stupid enough to think they can tell everyone
>> what to do.  […]
>
>And the government that passed these bans didn't think so?


I certainly hope they weren't that naive.


>> >Personal attacks are antithetical to reason.
>>
>> Aww, cry me a river. […]
>
>No tears … enemies of reason like you used to irritate me, and now you
>just bore me.


If I actually were an enemy of reason, that might matter to me.
However, I am the definition of reason.

-- 
Joel Crump

M_P  wrote:

>> >> I don't even need to specifically refute why you're wrong.  If anyone
>> >> doesn't get it, they are fucking retarded.
>> >[…]
>> >> If you don't
>> >> know that, you are wayyy beneath my level on drug knowledge, and you
>> >> can go educate yourself.
>>
>> >Coward.
>>
>> As if you've presented anything big to support your points?  Please.
>
>Since I haven't presented anything "big" by your self-serving
>standards, you can present nothing at all? Cowardly and stupid.


I've presented my ideas.  You have failed to discuss them.  I'm not
interested in letting you further blame me for not giving you more
when you haven't given more.  It's your own failure to get into the
issues, because you are wrong, and you are avoiding admitting it.


>> The "..." part said what you believe is *not* the reason it was
>> banned.
>
>So you claim.


And rather than just admitting I'm right, you say stupid shit about
what I "claim".  What a lame fuck you are!


>> >Nonsense. Anyone punished under that law is coerced.
>>
>> Most LSD busts are of dealers, not users.
>
>But not all -- ergo, there is coercion.


Of people stupid enough to get caught, sure, I guess.  It's pretty
irrelevant on the grand scale, though.


>> >And the government that passed these bans didn't think so?
>>
>> I certainly hope they weren't that naive.
>
>Your hopes mean squat. If they didn't think the laws would be
>effective, why did they bother? Just so they could be anal-retentively
>consistent?


That is certainly one aspect of it, yes.  Cannabis has always been the
real enemy, among non-hard drugs.

-- 
Joel Crump

On Mon, 5 May 2008 10:48:27 -0700 (PDT), M_P 
wrote:

>> >> >And the government that passed these bans didn't think so?
>>
>> >> I certainly hope they weren't that naive.
>>
>> >Your hopes mean squat. If they didn't think the laws would be
>> >effective, why did they bother? Just so they could be anal-retentively
>> >consistent?
>>
>> That is certainly one aspect of it, yes.
>
>A clearly ridiculous theory.

He might be wrong, but it certainly isn't a "clearly ridiculous
theory". I don't really know why LSD was originally banned, whether
those in authority genuinely thought it was a threat to the people, to
themselves, or for some other reason. I've read a lot abot it, but I
still don't claim to know the answer.

However... in related news.... fresh (i.e. not dried) magic mushrooms
were made illegal in the UK recently. They went from being completely
legal, to having the same status in law as Heroin, Cocaine (and LSD or
MDMA for that matter). The reason *was* simply to make the law more
consistent. They were already Class A drugs if "prepared" for
consumption. Prosecutions were brought for the sale of fresh
mushrooms, and at least one was thrown out by the magistrate hearing
the case on the grounds that the law was ambiguous. The government
then acted to make the law less ambiguous - not to protect people, not
because people were being damaged by the shrooms (although there was
widespread reporting of a guy who'd died after taking far too high a
dose in completely inappropriate circumstances - and our puritanical
press somehow failed to mention that the death was actually several
years in the past - they couldn't find anything more recent).

So if one government (dominated by lawyers, as they tend to be these
days) can make a perfectly legal, and almost completely harmlesss (if
not beneficial) into one that can be punished with a life sentence,
then I don't think it's "clearly ridiculous" that another government
once did a similar thing...

pj

On Thu, 8 May 2008 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT), M_P 
wrote:

>> He might be wrong, but it certainly isn't a "clearly ridiculous
>> theory". I don't really know why LSD was originally banned, whether
>> those in authority genuinely thought it was a threat to the people, to
>> themselves, or for some other reason. I've read a lot abot it, but I
>> still don't claim to know the answer.
>>
>> However... in related news.... fresh (i.e. not dried) magic mushrooms
>> were made illegal in the UK recently. They went from being completely
>> legal, to having the same status in law as Heroin, Cocaine (and LSD or
>> MDMA for that matter). The reason *was* simply to make the law more
>> consistent. They were already Class A drugs if "prepared" for
>> consumption. Prosecutions were brought for the sale of fresh
>> mushrooms, and at least one was thrown out by the magistrate hearing
>> the case on the grounds that the law was ambiguous. [...]
>
>False parallel. That sort of consistency is a very different animal
>than a consistency that Joel alleges led to LSD being banned because
>it reached a level of usage comparable to the levels at which other
>drugs had been banned.

I don't think that's a false parallel - if no-one in the UK had been
using or selling shrooms then the law wouldn't have been changed.
There was a period however when they were widely sold in headshops
(something that some people - including some adp posters have
criticised as provoking the government into banning them - personally
I think that's like saying owning an ipod is provoking muggers). It
was only when that happened that a number of prosecutions occurred,
minor courts refused to convict, on the grounds that the law was
ambiguous, and the government had to legislate. Then, instead of
assessing the risks involved (the british system of classifying
illegal drugs is supposedly based on the danger each particular
substance exposes the public to - a principle which has quite
obviously not been adherered to), the law was altered in the simplest
possible way to make it unambiguous.

>> So if one government (dominated by lawyers, as they tend to be these
>> days) can make a perfectly legal, and almost completely harmlesss (if
>> not beneficial) into one that can be punished with a life sentence,
>> then I don't think it's "clearly ridiculous" that another government
>> once did a similar thing...
>
>Straw man. 

I know what that means, but it's such a fucking tedious cliche*....
one which thankfully seems to be confined to usenet. It's a bit like
the phrase "the situation on the ground", which (at least in the UK)
was used by a couple of military types during the Balkans conflict
(and referring of course to eye witness accounts as opposed to
hearsay), and which has now become a mainstay of british journalistic
prose..... 

>Of course I didn't say it was "clearly ridiculous" that the
>U.S. government did that, because it's a simple historical fact that
>they did.

sorry,  I omitted the crucial bit - that our government made the
change in the law in order to make the law consistent, not to make
people safer. So I see no reason why other governments shouldn't do
similar things. 

pj


*  to the extent that, I'm afraid, it makes me completely lose
interest in the thread. Nothing personal. To your credit, you haven't,
so far as I can see, written "teh" instead of "the" anywhere (another
usenet cliche that wakes me up from my complacency and makes me ask
what I'm doing here when there are other things I could be doing).

On May 8, 5:27 pm, pj  wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT), M_P 
> wrote:

> >> He might be wrong, but it certainly isn't a "clearly ridiculous
> >> theory". I don't really know why LSD was originally banned, whether
> >> those in authority genuinely thought it was a threat to the people, to
> >> themselves, or for some other reason. I've read a lot abot it, but I
> >> still don't claim to know the answer.
>
> >> However... in related news.... fresh (i.e. not dried) magic mushrooms
> >> were made illegal in the UK recently. They went from being completely
> >> legal, to having the same status in law as Heroin, Cocaine (and LSD or
> >> MDMA for that matter). The reason *was* simply to make the law more
> >> consistent. They were already Class A drugs if "prepared" for
> >> consumption. Prosecutions were brought for the sale of fresh
> >> mushrooms, and at least one was thrown out by the magistrate hearing
> >> the case on the grounds that the law was ambiguous. [...]
>
> >False parallel. That sort of consistency is a very different animal
> >than a consistency that Joel alleges led to LSD being banned because
> >it reached a level of usage comparable to the levels at which other
> >drugs had been banned.
>
> I don't think that's a false parallel - if no-one in the UK had been
> using or selling shrooms then the law wouldn't have been changed.
> There was a period however when they were widely sold in headshops
> (something that some people - including some adp posters have
> criticised as provoking the government into banning them - personally
> I think that's like saying owning an ipod is provoking muggers). It
> was only when that happened that a number of prosecutions occurred,
> minor courts refused to convict, on the grounds that the law was
> ambiguous, and the government had to legislate. Then, instead of
> assessing the risks involved (the british system of classifying
> illegal drugs is supposedly based on the danger each particular
> substance exposes the public to - a principle which has quite
> obviously not been adherered to), the law was altered in the simplest
> possible way to make it unambiguous.

How many other substance bans came about as simplest-possible
resolutions of ambiguities? None that I know of, whereas Joel's claim
was about many different bans.

> >> So if one government (dominated by lawyers, as they tend to be these
> >> days) can make a perfectly legal, and almost completely harmlesss (if
> >> not beneficial) into one that can be punished with a life sentence,
> >> then I don't think it's "clearly ridiculous" that another government
> >> once did a similar thing...
>
> >Straw man.
>
> I know what that means, but it's such a fucking tedious cliche*....
>
> >Of course I didn't say it was "clearly ridiculous" that the
> >U.S. government did that, because it's a simple historical fact that
> >they did.
>
> sorry,  I omitted the crucial bit - that our government made the
> change in the law in order to make the law consistent, not to make
> people safer. So I see no reason why other governments shouldn't do
> similar things.

Conclusions based on different forms of the same substance can't
directly be applied to completely different substances.

> pj
>
> *  to the extent that, I'm afraid, it makes me completely lose
> interest in the thread.

There's the door; I'm sure you know how to use it.