212 thoughts on “Sandpit”

  1. It seems to em that if you want to advocate continuing the prohibition of drugs you need not only to show that particular drugs are more harmful than others, but that prohibition works for those drugs. Freelander may or may not be doing a good job of advocating the relative safety of heroin. He does not seem to be telling us why he does not then advocate the legalisation of heroin and the continuing prohibition of cannabis.

  2. If monkton was making a general statement about government reports he would be right but the ipcc is something else.

    Under George bush us gov reports couldn’t tell the truth.

    Peer review ed lit not gov lit is the standard and not all lit or studies are equal.

  3. Freelander won’t read this either, but others might; I thought it had some funny moments.

    http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/12/on-the-life-saving-effects-of-marijuana-laws/

    Freelander you might find this book interesting, “Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind” in which Robert Kurzban “shows us that the key to understanding our inconsistencies lies in understanding that the human mind consists of many specialized units designed by the process of evolution and these modules don’t always work seamlessly together, so it’s quite easy to develop impossibly contradictory beliefs, to violate our supposed moral principles, and overinflate our opinion of ourselves.”

  4. The reason to ban drugs doesn’t rely on the harm to the user.morphine, although benign when used sensibly should not be allowed as a rec drug because drugged people are a danger to others, including their kids if they have any. I pointed this out way back.

    Some seem to think ganja is fine.it is not.

  5. @Alan

    Quite so.

    Say Freelander is right that there is a knock-down case for cannabis being as harmful a drug as alcohol. Obviously, there isn’t, but supposing there were.

    Under these circumstances: why is alcohol legal but cannabis not?

  6. I’m sorry but you seem Freelander to argue your convictions about the dangers of drug abuse (or nuclear power for that matter, if my memory serves) about as plausibly as would Ian Plimer.

  8. Peer review ed lit not gov lit is the standard and not all lit or studies are equal.

    so the editors of the International Journal of Drug Policy, the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs and the International Review of Psychiatry are as bad at reading the literature as the government’s National Drug Strategy.

  10. @Freelander

    I have very limited knowledge in the fields of medicine and biology to have a say on the issues discussed. I have a bias view against drugs however I did follow up on the links gerald and others have provided and gave a thought about it. Unforunately, even though I have not been convinced to support drug legalisation yet, I do suggest you to analysis the evidence they provided fairly. In the end, we don’t want ourselves to end up like the right-wing extremist.

    @gerald and others that supported drug legalisation

    Thanks for the evidence provided, they’ve provided me with new understandings on this issue. Although Freelander’s attitude is not to be appreciated, I believe his (and mine) sceptism about drug legalisation can be understood. In the past, although there may not be evidence that cannabis links to psychosis problems. It did create painful history for user’s families, whether it is safe or not is an important issue. However the other issue can be that, even if it does not cause psychosis problems, it may cause some social problems? (I’m not too sure how to describe it) to families. With that being said, I fully understand cannabis can be a useful drug for medical purposes. As for alcohol………. even though I agree that it is very dangerous substance, I don’t see a possibility of a government able put fourth a law to ban it without them getting thrown out by the public in Australia.

    @Julie Thomas

    Most certainly true about inconsistencies. I have found inconsistencies in the things others say and do quite a lot of times, and I have also found inconsistencies in the things I say and do as well sometimes (not always easy to recognise self-inconsistencies). Most of inconsistencies of myself have caused me to think back like “why the hell did I say that (or do that)?”. It might be because people got used to react a certain way if they did so in the past, so that even if they knew they were wrong and wanted to change, they acted the way they did in the past unconsciously. It might also be that the person does not have full understanding of the things they say. Unforunately it is difficult if not impossible for people to actually think about everything they say or do, just my two cents worth.

  12. Some seem to think ganja is fine.it is not.

    Says you Freelander. In my experience, it is fine and even better, it is dandy. Your certainty on this issue reminds me of arguing with a libertarian about whether welfare harms people.

  13. Corrections in my moderated post “It did create painful history for user’s families, whether it is safe or not is an important issue. However the other issue can be that, even if it does not cause psychosis problems…”

    Should be “It did create painful history for abusers/addicts’ families. Safety of the drug is an important issue, however the other issue can be that, even if it does not cause psychosis problems…”

  14. @Julie Thomas

    In the end, eating food will ensure you die. So too will breathing. These things do “harm” you in the long run.

    In the short run, not eating and not breathing will ensure you die a lot more quickly. There will be no long run. What to do?

    Enjoying your life entails risk of harm. Death is the only way to be sure one is minimally harmed. It’s a paradox, but most of us prefer the risks of life.

  15. I find this thread a little amusing. Maybe drugs do not cause mental illness in itself. Is that what is important.

    Back on the dark ages when I worked in the welfare field, I do know, I did not find any situation that was made better by the used of drugs, including alcohol in many cases.

    Now I might have been unlucky , plain blind or bias for this.

    I also found, no matter the situation, little could be done until the drug use was dealt with.

    Drugs, often were a secondary cause of the dire straits many found themselves in.

    I worked in child protection and family support. This also meant that mental illness was often present.

    Yes, some may be able to control their drug habit. I believe most cannot.

  17. Sillier and sillier, with the only redeeming feature you’re not also climate change deniers; although that appears to be a consequence of chance rather than rational deliberation.

    Well one of you wondering why one might be reticent to ban alcohol? Well maybe some of you bright sparks can work that one out all by yourselves?

  18. @Freelander

    No need to be patronising; I know precisely why alcohol isn’t banned. However, I note that when it was banned, things got worse, not better. I also note that the same arguments for why we don’t ban alcohol would apply to marijuana if it happened to be on the other side of the prohibition fence.

  19. @Catching up

    Back in the dark ages when I worked in the welfare field {…} I did not find any situation that was made better by the use of drugs, including alcohol in many cases. (minor typos corrected)

    This is almost certainly correct (assuming by ‘drugs’ one is describing non-prescription medication), but it’s not really pertinent here. Nobody, AFAIK, is arguing that self-medication with currently illicit or proscribed substances is a good answer to challenges in one’s life. Neither for that matter, is watching TV, or self-harming or eating to excess but these, like getting drunk, are all legal. The question is — what behaviour should be permitted by the state, or at any rate, not punished by the state when detected.

    Yes, some may be able to control their drug habit. I believe most cannot.

    This is the language of the Daily Telegraph. Alcohol and tobacco dependence rarely gets the designation “drug habit”. Such people are not demonised as “druggies” and losers.

    What we have with illicit and illegal drugs is a morally-augmented instant of afirmation bias. Almost by definition, only those with substance abuse problems come to our attention and so they define the group. Sometimes, precisely because of the co-morbidities, poor and marginalised folk are disproportionately represented and cum hoc ergo propter hoc kicks in. A nice tidy narrative in which moral or ethical bankrupts who are become the authors of their own misery and anti-social conduct. Because suffering mental illness is widely seen as moral illness, the coextension tends to fit very nicely — a real cultural synergy and is perfect for the Daily Telegraph crowd.

    Lots of people drink alcohol without it running their lives. Most can gamble without going nuts. I daresay most illicit drug users likewise fit it into a niche in their recreation — and perhaps if it were legal, more would do so more easily.

  21. Anyway if instead of responding to what I’ve said you all insist on slaying phantoms of your own delusion don’t expect me to continue playing. At some point your accumulated silliness ceases to amuse.

  22. @Freelander

    Settle down, matey. You and I are usually on similar pages so let’s see why we diverge here. Tell me what you think I’m missing:

    1) Alcohol – unequivocally causes illness, contributes to violence. Physically addictive. No medicinal benefits. Regulated, taxed, still available on the black market but no-one bothers.
    2) Marijuana – possibly causes illness, users do not become violent. Not physically addictive. Medicinal benefits. Only available via the black market, representing lost potential public revenue, not to mention incurring enforcement costs.

  23. I can’t see how anyone has provoked Freelander’s chip-on-the-shoulder antics. Seriously mate, settle down and grow up. We don’t all have to agree with you on everything, even if you are convinced that you’re yet another anonymous keyboard genius.

  24. What a rabble!

    There are some big differences between alcohol and ganja, which explain why a sensible policy maker would be reticent to ban one but not the other.

    Come on now, think! Show that you intellectually tower over the likes of cardinal Pell!

  25. BTW I’m undecided on the prohibition matter. I used to favour prohibition of most currently illicit drugs but I’m currently not so sure.

  26. @Dan

    Dan, that is some very biased and untrue view of alcohol. Alcohol by itself is a substance that has benefits if not consumed excessively like the binge drinkers. Unfortunately it is true that it is an addictive substance that does affect people’s ability to decide how much they’ll consume the substance hence it is dangerous because excessive consumption (that doesn’t mean OD, just simply getting drunk) causes a lot of the problems you’ve stated which contribute to violence and cause brain impairments as well, there is no denial what so ever of that.

    The benefits? Alcohol is very effective when it is used to treat wounds and injuries. Very moderate consumption of red wine (1-2 glasses maximum a day) provides quite some benefits to health (However beer is complete rubbish which does no good to human health at all). Alcohol is also widely used in cooking as well as traditional Chinese medicine.

    The addictive attribute itself is very dangerous, but we shouldn’t be so biased on alcohol as a substance if we want to keep ourselves fair and balanced.

    P.S I’m in no way arguing that alcohol is not dangerous, I just hope that we would not be so biased in analysing certain things.

  28. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. If anyone looks at the beginning of the exchange I indicated that we will have to agree to disagree. But if I disagree I don’t have to agree that I was wrong. Or that your ‘facts’ are facts.

    Sad that instead of sensible debate there has been a torrent of sophistry. And some who have knowledge of the subject including personal knowledge have been shouted down by the ignorant horde.

    Personally, I love to see the ignorant horde in full flight. And I love to rile that horde with what the horde interpretes as arrogance or even conceit.

    The horde knows when it’s wrong; that’s when it bellows loudest.

    Bellow away!

  29. @Freelander

    An individual can know when they’re wrong; that’s when they bellow loudest.

  30. Alan :
    @Freelander
    An individual can know when they’re wrong; that’s when they bellow loudest.

    An individual has today speak loudly and with vigor to be heard amongst a bellowing horde.

    If you think correctness is established by a larger number shouting down a smaller number, fine.

  31. I’m going to see how long you fellows will continue passing your baton of stupidity.

  32. @Tom

    Very moderate consumption of red wine (1-2 glasses maximum a day) provides quite some benefits to health

    It seems that even this claim is somewhat suspect as some people who aren’t drinking any alcohol are doin so because of existing illnesses where alcohol is contra-indicated. Moreover, some people drinking two glasses per day are also pursuing other health promoting activities and are generally better of financially.

  33. What is sad is most are clever enough to work answers out themselves but are impeded by a variety of emotional baggage. That is also why it is a total waste of time laying the answer before them. The same impediments stop them from accepting it.

  34. That is why debate has little value as a means to inform. And why democracy has been such a serial failure.

  36. @Alan

    Then there could be no suggestion that I’ve bellowed.

    You can’t have it both ways. But then,based on prescident you probably imagine you can.

  37. @Fran Barlow

    That is true, if people drink red wine moderately for improving their health; it is more likely that they will pursue other activities that will improve their health as well. However it is one of those things where it is debatable just like cannabis, although there might be correlation between psychosis and cannabis consumption; it is not definite as well. In the case of red wine, it may well be that it is because of the other activities they pursue, or red wine itself does have benefits to health when consumed moderately.

  38. If it was disagree that’s all, then my “we’ll have to agree to disagree” way back at the start would have been the end of it.

  39. Well you certainly are a rude and ignorant twit, Freelander. I also see very little evidence of intelligence so accordingly I will ignore you in the future. I would like that courtesy returned, thank you.

    I believe Fran is correct about alcohol. Rosemary Stanton, whom I respect a great deal, and many other researchers, have made the same point about many of the epi studies being flawed because they ignore the fact that ill people are less likely to drink and that people who stop at one or two drinks a night are qualitatively different from nondrinkers and heavier drinkers.

  41. @Freelander

    Nice try, but as defective in logic as the rest of your claims in this thread. You wont address factual issues beyond Monktoning them. You repeatedly accuse anyone disagreeing with you of stupidity, sophistry or worse. Hard to see that as the exercise of sweet reason.

    There is no logical ground why the absence of bellowing on our side means that you are not bellowing at us. But then for some reason you seem to have abandoned logic for asseveration in this thread.

  42. @Alan

    No I don’t. I simply accuse them of what they are guilty of. Nothing to do with them disagreeing with me.
    Like, for example, when they make a fanciful claim like the one you just made.
    If you don’t know when you talk nonsense, that’s sad.

  43. @Freelander

    You are suggesting that you think those who agree with you are guilty sic of the same things? Perhaps you could point to a comment where you accuse someone of stupidity for agreeing with you.

  44. @Alan

    If you are not stupid,Alan,you would recognize that your last request is both sophistry and stupid.

    If people want to take a monkton approach to evidence I am not going to forensicly dissect all their flaws. They are acting in bad faith, as are you. If you don’t know that, then that further confirms the wisdom of my avoiding forensics.

  46. @Freelander

    Re: emotional baggage – that’s exactly what I see when I see this thread. More precisely, yours.

    I don’t give a fig whether pot is legal or not as I’m not a user (though like anyone else in their 20s in the inner city would have no trouble acquiring it illegally if so inclined). I am however a moderately, erm, dedicated drinker despite the health risks that entails. If the substance was banned that would be okay with me too.

    What I don’t get (rationally! I get the history) it why one is illegal and one is not. In fact it seriously seems to me that the less harmful of the two is the illegal one.

    When I tried to raise this as clear-sightedly as possible, I had to face ad-homs. wtf.

    I know perfectly well I’m not stupid, so that response is not only facile, it’s also incorrect.

    Freelander, I urge you to step up the quality and content of your argument. As someone who genuinely doesn’t give much of a toss, I implore you: change my mind.

  47. If you can’t work through why one is legal and one is not and the relevant ways the two differ, then that can be for either of two reasons.

    One, lack of intellect; or two.some impediment to thinking rationally.

    Neither problem I can cure even if I wanted to. And providing those differences would also be a waste of time.

    Hence,I hope I leave you in bliss (that is, in ignorance

  49. @Freelander

    I can only surmise that the reason you’re acting like a twit is because you have no argument.

    I’m very disappointed; I thought far more of you until this thread.

    You’ll no doubt say – even think – you don’t care, because you’re obviously so much more clever and rational than me, etc. etc. That remains poor form; if you can’t even win over someone who doesn’t feel strongly about an issue, and is certainly getting feedback from other parts of their life suggesting they know an antecedent from a consequent, then I’m really sorry but that’s 100% on you.

Leave a comment