The Economist article is a good read.

Post #3,415 by Another Scott 8/1/01 10:33:52 AM Reply	The Economist article is a good read. I finished the "survey" last night. It wasn't quite as hard-hitting as I expected (it's based heavily on a recently issued reports which probably had more facts and figures - see the [link\|http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=708492\|sources]), but it was a well-reasoned article. They make the point that it's difficult for countries which have signed the UN convention on drugs to subsequently liberalize their policies, and give the example of a proposed law in Switzerland which will let people grow marijuana as long as they account for all the production and none is exported. It'll still be "illegal", but the offendors will have formal exemption from prosecution for it. They push the Mill-ian view - a person has soverignty over themselves - and it makes sense. But they admit addiction and use will increase and don't really know what to do about that. They acknowledge addiction is a problem, but argue that the war on drugs has too high a cost. I think they make a pretty good case for a pragmatic approach, but expected a bit more. (Not that I could have done any better...) Cheers, Scott.
Post #3,492 by Ashton 8/1/01 4:51:24 PM Reply	The topic appears to be a litmus for, How BAD matters must get - before some actual reasoned, wholesale revision is.. even contemplated. That contemplation today appears to be - only at the fringe, not quite yet at an official er Concern-level (?) Most Muricans claim some 'religious affiliation' and Murica is the largest per-capita consumer of 'drugs' of all kinds, in history - so naturally there is rampant hypocrisy in both well-travelled 'fields'. So.. has it gotten BAD-enough. Yet? {sigh}
Post #3,499 by mhuber 8/1/01 5:17:24 PM Reply	Religion and drugs? How is drug use by the religious hypocrisy? Last I heard, the largest single faith group in the USA is my own Catholic church. And while there are rules in that church designed to reduce church-state friction (we are supposed to follow civil laws unless we have a pretty good reason not to) that would make the use of illegal drugs indirectly against church teachings, there is nothing against moderate alcohol consumption. In fact, it is sacrementaly encouraged, and not just in church. If bread and wine weren't considered normal food and drink, the Mass would lose a certain degree of meaning. If cannabis were legal, there would be no Catholic objection to smoking it in moderation. Ruining your health and life is against the rules, though, so the occasional sermon against drunkeness happens in some parishes. Catholics are allowed to drink and gamble and dance. And that annoys some of the Protestants. White guys in suits know best - Pat McCurdy
Post #3,500 by Ashton 8/1/01 5:32:39 PM Reply	Common thread was (meant to be) Hypocrisy. Religion, drug use - are comparable in numbers of practitioners (?) Most religions preach reasonably er 'sane' approaches to the vicissitudes of life: note the % of 'believers' who aren't so good at acting out those beliefs. Ditto re drugs: moderation.. that idea overlaps both categories also. But The Law has a rilly bad time with the concept of 'moderation', y'know? (A microgram of an Evul substance in that spectrophotometer search of your car: is admissible as "something"). Be nice if the Catholic Church would spend as much energy and emotion in support of such simple ideas as - Not sending folks to jail for 30+ years for marijuana usage - as they spend trying to torpedo globally: even birth control! (never mind abortion even). Oh, as to hypocrisy - haven't seen numbers lately of the % of Catholics using birth control. Either. Nothing IS simple, is it? And so it goes. Drugs, religion, sex - homo-sap be the Kwaziest species yet! (far as we know, o'course ;-) A.
Post #3,501 by Ashton 8/1/01 5:35:59 PM Reply	Sentient LRPD strikes! Again. I'm sorry, I came here for an argument! Spirits are everywhen.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Post #3,509 by mhuber 8/1/01 6:12:34 PM Reply	Catholicism and birth control Where do you think I got my overdeveloped perspective on scofflaws? White guys in suits know best - Pat McCurdy
Post #3,524 by Ashton 8/1/01 7:24:04 PM Reply	Cackle.. Cackle.. :-\ufffd Yeah.. feel ~ same way about 'stuff I know better than to ___' (And Oneself can be a more daunting figure than ol' John Paul.. though maybe not so daunting as to - make the next faux pas ?? - in front of, John XXIII !) PS - did 'we' all ever get That situation sorted out for all time? I read some books, but of course the real actors aren't talking. As usual. Likely never will - even in the archives? I tended to think of him as the kinda guy depicted by - sadly, the now late :[ - Anthony Quinn in, Shoes of the Fisherman. Was he just too bloody Good to survive the bureaucracy. For long enough.. ?? {sigh} Cheers, I. (..only rarely present, as Ashton is somehow eluding.. er doing Good and stuff ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!