Peterkin

that was your word that was mine: other reliable sources can provide the historical documentation to corroborate the one I cited. You must, of course, please yourself.

And there is still the known but largely unaddressed problem of prescription drugs - legally available and harmful to the more prosperous and empowered; illegally available and harmful to the most vulnerable: the poor and the young. Another aspect of criminalizing everything in sight: once out of sight, the user still isn't safe, and neither is a previous non-user https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-drug-problem-jail-uk-illicit-substances-reform-a9288616.html It's not just the UK, obviously: There was an interesting article, also, on the fact that only 11% of prisoners with drug addiction are getting any treatment. But my internet connection is playing silly buggers today, so I'm giving up on that link. Criminalization is just not working.

The spike in abortions was not due to the Supreme Court decision. It was merely the legal resurfacing of a practice that goes way back. Roe v Wade in the US, as had happened a few years before in Canada, merely meant that it happens on operating tables instead of kitchen tables. Of course, a great many abortions were already being performed in doctors' offices and private clinics, without documentation. Both the documentation and the patient survival rate in the lower classes increased dramatically (I don't have time to look up infanticide and abandonment stats). Everybody had known all along, but now they could know it aloud. In the post WWII decades, western society exercised the break with its Christian foundations - a break for which the philosophical groundwork had been laid between the world wars, by Huxley, Russell et al. At the same time, the great burgeoning of women's social, economic and political emancipation - also with its roots in the early 20th century, and its collision with existing power structure in the 1960's, at the same time that the single largest cohort the western world had ever produced entered its reproductive stage. At the same time that the Civil Rights Movement - not coincidentally - made substantial progress. In the 1970's, all of these forces converged. And they all threatened the the long entrenched, self-entitled power structure, social structure, legal structure. At the same time that some white factions feared desegregation (with the concomitant challenge from Black men for the jobs and positions white men considered their domain) they were also faced with a challenge for those positions of economic and political power from women, who, hitherto had been kept out of the fray by motherhood and dependency. Whipping up a moral backlash on behalf of the 'precious little murdered babies' had a triple advantage: it turned the decent, God-fearing women against the wanton Jezebels (dividing women for easy conquest), created a politically impotent underclass of shamed, impoverished unwed mothers (useful as football and whipping post) and, besides masking the unsavoury motivations of that faction, also concealed the building of the existential threat that is the GOP of today. (Side-note: Wouldn't you think that, if the moral Protestants were seriously concerned about unborn babies and their mothers' souls, they would advocate strongly for, rather than against family planning, sex education and birth control? ) The 'abortion issue' is indeed the biggest, most effective smokescreen since the 13th century witch-hunts... with much the same designated target. No, on second thought, that's incorrect. The great open-ended commie-hunt of the 50's was another. Similar motives, different fall-guy.

irrespective of what it contains, it's hard to believe. It's also readily verifiable from any number of historical sources. Here is another opinionated article. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/four-decades-counting-continued-failure-war-drugs# Second circle. I don't. Maybe you're right. Maybe if something didn't work the first fifteen times, the sixteenth attempt will have different results. What is your 'stance'? I thought you were in favour of legal alcohol (the most dangerous) and illegal mushrooms (the least dangerous).

I don't know about all of the substances, but cannabis has been in use - legally, medically, recreationally - in quite large populations for about 10,000 years. I have not seen any studies from pre-colonial India and China suggesting a higher rate of physical illness, addiction or criminality from cannabis than in post-colonial cultures where it's illegal. I have not seen any clinical comparison between the use of peyote, morning glory seeds, and mushrooms by North American natives and alcohol use in the same population - we only about the devastating effects of the latter. The whole banning drugs craze in the west is a 20th century phenomenon - and, guess what? Its history is closely entwined with racism https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal As for the new street drugs, how does illegality affect their medical risk assessment? By making it, user identification and treatment, more difficult. It's not my chart. How do you know it has? We do have some statistics about man-hours, equipment, etc that goes into policing; we do have statistics on the cost, both economic and social, of apprehension, trial and incarceration. We do have statistics that by far the majority of the prison population of the US is there for drug-related offenses. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp We have no US statistics for what hasn't been tried in the US, but the ones we do have attest poorly for criminalizing. Not the same as what you think will happen, evidently. But there really is only one way to find out who's right.

Adding? I think they have been around for some time - the ones I mentioned, thousands of years. And new ones are being made all the time, sold illegally, unregulated and sometimes, at least until it's too late, undetected. Because according to the charts (it's a cactus, American https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/tripping-on-peyote-in-navajo-nation/) they're among the least harmful. If something less harmful satisfies the same craving in more people, the overall harm is reduced. Much more to the point, if a less harmful substance, in small quantities, fills a need that alcohol fails to, goading the needy to drink more and more, it would reduce harm considerably. I don't. Prohibiting them hasn't done any good: the largely ineffective enforcement measures are obscenely expensive, divisive, disruptive and ruin as many lives and families as addiction itself. What's out in the open has at a chance of being controlled. What's hidden in the sewers has none.

Indeed. Also, I wonder about the reporting - how reliable the numbers are. Much remains unknown. I don't question that alcohol is both the most abused and most accepted of those substances. But I don't see the remedy - not even a partial one - in prohibition. Outlawing things that people want simply drives commerce in those things underground; it feeds crime, secrecy and desperation - not to mention misappropriation and corruption in law enforcement. It might, however be possible to legislate a better distribution of substance use. Legalizing marijuana legal is a start, but as long as it costs vastly more than wine and spirits, nothing will change. Legalizing magic mushrooms and peyote will not divert a noticeable population from alcohol, unless there is sufficient, affordable supply, and even then, it would take time. I think we're stuck with alcohol, and the vast tax revenues from its overconsumption, because we just can't offer the users a viable alternative.

Then I guess a lot of Americans - or rather, even more Americans - are just plain screwed. Partition?

Those charts represent total harms, yes? Not per capita? So this just means, the more people use something, the more harm it can do. Are any prescription drugs included?

Every government has its own attitude to each kind of drug. These attitudes are influenced by culture, religion, history, sometimes by pressure from bigger countries and trading partners. They have different reasons for the laws they pass and the laws they enforce (not necessarily the same) and how strict and harsh the enforcement is. Some judge a substance more harmful than it is, simply because it's alien to their culture. Sometimes they pass a law - or reinstate an old one that had been neglected by mutual consent - in order to assert their authority, to demonstrate moral rectitude, to signal a reform, to mollify or intimidate an identifiable political faction. There is no universal or general situation: peoples, their governments and their challenges are all different. Yes, toxins are bad for human physiology. But then so are a lot of other things we are expected to survive. Governments have various degrees of control over the people's actions, and vice versa.

Now, there you have a whole pitch of sticky wickets. Jurisdictional disputes between states, and state and federal agencies. I can't see these issues resolved any time soon: what's needed is nothing less than a full sweep of reforms.

I'm not sure. But SCOTUS is not a single mind; even the Republican appointees don't have the exact same response to every constitutional issue. It's a difficult document to interpret in the face of contemporary social reality. And they're not - mostly - stupid people or dishonest judges. They may reach a majority decision on one issue and a different conclusion on another. You know laws are passed by legislatures, right? And changed by legislatures? And guided, limited or knocked down by the constitutional principles that gave them the authority to legislate.

Nobody is going to solve the recreational drug problem. People use them for different reasons: religious ecstasy, introspection, sexual pleasure, conviviality and escape. It only the last category that renders these substances (I exclude narcotics, the concentrated opioids and barbiturates) dangerous is that people don't just desire escape - they crave it and need it. Some form of pain is making their life difficult to bear in sobriety. The more kind of pain we could eliminate from people's lives - prevent, rather than treat - the fewer would seek oblivion or fantasy, and end up in addiction. As long as people have crappy lives, they'll do whatever they can to leave those crappy lives - for an hour or eternity. Education is a good start; life-long health care is a prerequisite; social and economic environment are major factors.

That law, itself, should be subject to review, shouldn't it? Post-abolition, is it constitutional for a state to prohibit freedom of movement?

They've been working on this a long time. They finally succeeded. Another step forward to the past. Wouldn't it be nice to see this one backfire?

different governments have tried to ban alcohol, as well as other recreational drugs. Whatever the reasons given, there are underlying motives for such bans - mainly religious ones. These substances reduce inhibition. Civil obedience as well as moral righteousness rely heavily on suppression of 'base' or 'animal' impulses. Hedonism, loquacity, veracity, disrespect for authority - these are all threats to the social order. In societies with a very tight organization, conformity, demanding hierarchy, repression and exploitation, there is an inevitably high level of stress and frustration - the very factors most likely to drive people to drink and drugs. And since the lowest classes have the most stress and access to the poorest quality of escape chemicals, they tend also to have the highest rate of addiction and concomitant criminal behaviour. Since those governments are the least inclined to change the circumstances of their citizenry, they are the most likely to turn the law against the substances and people who use the substances. But since rich and influential people can always circumnavigate the law and find access to whatever they want, the lawmakers themselves are not inconvenienced: they can wage an endless 'war on drugs' from underneath their parasols atop the battlements (figuratively). Alcohol, othoh, if far too easy to make, and some of the home-made versions are lethal. https://earthsky.org/human-world/strange-brew-how-poorly-crafted-booze-can-make-you-sick-or-dead/ So, while the upper classes' refusal to abide by prohibition gave rise to a whole new system of organized crime to supply them with high quality booze, the working class had to make do with moonshine or similar, resulting in much loss of labour in the factories. The whole exercise proved unconscionably expensive and futile. At the time of repeal, and even when Nixon declared war on the disaffected voter blocs [marijuana] https://www.vera.org/news/fifty-years-ago-today-president-nixon-declared-the-war-on-drugs it was not so easy to make other mind-altering substances in one's kitchen. Whatever the law, the patterns of use, effect and enforcement remain pretty constant. But at least there is some tax revenue from alcohol to pay for it.

We did. In one form, anyway. There were artists before us. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150610-animals-camouflage-decoration-bugs-science It's possible to reject art and artifice. You can even beat the creative impulse out of children. But humans do naturally have it, in some form and degree, and do crave both outward expression of our own perceptions and connection with others and the world through imagery. You can see it on every stone surface of places people have occupied since forever: scratching, painting, carving, building their mark on all their surroundings. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ancient-australian-aboriginal-art-unlike-anything-seen-180975984/

That looks like a vaguely pornographic cat-toy. (Yes, dear, horizontal stripes do make you look fat.) I would not sit in it, because there is no way in hell I could stand back up. It's a thing, it's functional, it's artistic and it's entertaining. It's probably also ridiculously expensive - but that's the effect, not of art but of fashion. Not every artist had his subtlety. It may come as no great shock that I'm more partial to Magritte.

Nothing creepy about that. Dogs like pack activities. When I lived in Vancouver, I used to frequent one of those little corner stores in a residential area. It was about five blocks from my flat and by the time I got there, I had a retinue of six or seven neighbourhood dogs. By the time I got home again, they'd all gone about their own canine business. There was nothing about me particularly to attract them - if I smelled of anything, it was ashtrays, not fish - except that I was going for a walk. When thinking about unexplained mental abilities, I think it's crucial to separate it from external 'paranormal phenomena'. That is, ESP of some form can be investigated as a processes entirely contained within the human subject. All we need to assume is that the human subject has a functional brain about which we do not yet know everything. Any investigation that's predicated on the existence of ghosts, spirits, haunts, banshees or whatever is a whole other matter. For that you have to make a very different set of assumptions. To lump the two together is to render both kind of investigation meaningless.

That's exactly the kind of thing the Arts and Crafts movement was about. And that's why I don't hold with capitalizing non-functional fine art and sequestering it for exclusive domain of the wealthy collector or public museum. Artistry can show up anywhere, in any form - and it's not all good. Bad art usually doesn't survive a brief fad; good art is preserved by the people it's handed down to - whether it's in the form a religious fresco, a copper necklace or an olive oil jar. I suppose that's the "verdict of society" - the longevity of an item.

I don't see an opposition. Some people put the capital for emphasis, because they think fine arts are more significant than crafts; some do it as mere affectation, or they think they're supposed to. It's completely unnecessary. There is no verdict from "society". There are only people who like things, hate things, are shocked by things, are transported and inspired by things, talk about things and criticize things. Art survives and performs a service as long as people are interested in it. is that in any way relevant to Picasso, Beethoven and Rodin?

I don't know the limits of possibility. Seems like, most or all of the paranormal claims are bogus or deluded. And yet, shit still happens that we're not sure why... so I keep my mind open. Not wide open so anyone can walk in, just a little ajar, in case something unexpected and wonderful comes knocking.

pretty cool pictures! I like the fire-face; reminds me of something from Babylon 5.

It's any original human-made thing that is intended, not to serve a practical function, but to engage an audience is sensory, emotional and imaginative dialogue with the artist, and thereby alter their view of the world.

Unusual has quite a lot to do with it. If a mutation turns up all the time, it's unremarkable, just part of the standard. If it turns up rarely, it can be fatal, detrimental, neutral or beneficial to the user - and which of those it is will determine whether it's noticed, how it's regarded, and the probability of its being passed on. If it turns up rarely, it also has much longer odds of spreading in the predominantly standard population - especially if the gene is recessive. Yes. And I'm questioning the assumption. Again, I ask you: Why? If the visions or whatever have no practical application, how do they enhance the person's chances of reproducing? And even if such a marginal ability provided the bearer with a small advantage in gambling, for example, it's as likely that they would be denounced for cheating as applauded for winning. In whatever area, there is nothing but speculation regarding the reproductive advantage or disadvantage of some form and degree of ESP. It could be argued, too, that nobody wants a mate who can read their mind - it happens anyway, over the years, but few young people want to be transparent during courtship. Nor do chiefs, kings and high priests, so the little boy who can see them naked isn't likely to grow up at all. Ambidexterity, otoh, is a clear and practical advantage, and still hasn't spread widely.