Philip K. Dick's Exegesis To Be Published In 2011

Dynamoo writes "The NYT reports that a two-part edition of PKD's Exegesis will be published next year. This huge work, a combination of journal and philosophical treatise, has been published in part before, but this is the first time that the whole version will be made generally available."

Comments

wow

[MickyTheIdiot]

I love Phil Dick's books. I've read the majority of them and even the bad ones are masterpieces in their own way. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about the Exegesis being published, because as interesting as it will be to read I think it is going to further tarnish his reputation. Phil Dick was the kind of person that was so smart that it caused mental disorder and he had some absolutely crazy beliefs. The Exegesis will probably underscore that.

Re:wow

[gilesjuk]

It didn't help that he and many of his friends were heavy drug users, so much of PKD's strange visions were most likely the result of drug use.

That's not to say it won't be interesting of course.

Re:wow

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Ditto. I just read V.A.L.I.S. and just from the parts of the Exegesis quoted in there it sounds insane and repetitive ("The empire never ended".) Even V.A.L.I.S. was sort of on the edge for me, interesting only because Dick is there to navigate through the madness with the reader and provide context and a counter weight. Can't imagine this will interesting unless heavily edited.

Re:wow

[ClioCJS]

Most profound work that is imaginative is related to drug use.

Re:wow

[abigor]

To be honest, for me the VALIS trilogy (VALIS, The Divine Invasion, and The Transmigration of Timothy Archer) are the least interesting PKD books. In his efforts to talk about the "pink laser" and Gnosticism, the storytelling suffered. Give me Dr. Bloodmoney any day.

Re:wow

[Philip K Dickhead]

You may not like it - but all of it is true. Even the parts that are not.

Re:wow

[dubbreak]

Most profound work that is imaginative is related to drug use.

While I not sure that's a good generalization, a lot of interesting work has come from people who actively used drugs. For example take a look at all the work done at SRI during the 60's: bit-mapped displays, collaboration software, hypertext, precursors to the graphical user interface and the first "mouse". According to the book, "What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer " the team there all experimented with drugs. Basically it implies the modern PC and how we interact with computers is the result of drug use.

Re:wow

[abigor]

Well if it's true, no wonder it's not interesting.

Re:wow

[lawpoop]

Tarnish his reputation? Forgive me, but isn't he emblematic of the mad genius? I don't mean just eccentric, but paranoid nut-so. His work wouldn't be so great without that factor, I don't think.

And for those of you who missed it, here's Robert Crumb's The Religious Experience of Philip K. Dick

Re:wow

[KliX]

Err, it wasn't smarts, it was a whole lot of speed that sent him nuts.

Re:wow

[ClioCJS]

It gets more interesting when you watch the documentary (BBC?) about how many inventions came from Star Trek ... And then realize Star Trek was created on amphetamines.

Re:wow

[Shatrat]

There are some great creative minds who happen to use drugs, but if you don't have an imagination without using drugs, then you don't have an imagination full stop.
I'm not an anti-drug crusader, but no matter what you think it won't make you interesting.

Re:wow

[Shatrat]

If they experimented with latin cuisine would modern personal computers be the result of tacos?
I think that there is a flaw in your logic.

Re:wow

[Ephemeriis]

Most profound work that is imaginative is related to drug use.

Is it the profound work that is imaginative that is related to drug use?

Or drug use that's related to profound work that is imaginative?

I've often found that the truly creative/imaginative folks have a hard time dealing with reality as it is, and frequently wind up self-medicating with various substances.

Re:wow

[Degro]

That's another big reason why our current war on drugs is such a shame (more of a shame is all the people dying over it along the us/mex border). If just cannabis and other unprocessed crops like shrooms, etc were legalized federally I think would be a huge boon for the country culturally. I know I've gotten some of my best ideas while high. I certainly don't enjoy writing code high, but I can continue to think about a project or specific problem after lighting up at the end of the day and usually gain some pretty amazing insight.

Re:wow

[ClioCJS]

If I think it makes somebody more interesting, than no matter what you think, it did make them more interesting to me. You see, this whole "no matter what you think" is kind of a fallacy. Interesting is subjective.

Movie

[ig88b]

When does the movie come out?

Re:Movie

[Monkeedude1212]

Just before the animated cartoon series.

Against PKD's wishes?

[astro]

I don't have sources to cite, but I recall when Radio Free Albemuth came out post-humously, that there was a stir that PKD had specifically stipulated that he did not want his works to be published after his death / without his approval. IIRC, his son approved the publication of aforementioned book, and like I said, there was quite a stir at the time.

Is his estate profiting against his original wishes?

FWIW, RFA was a GREAT book and I am glad it was published. Just wondering about the estate's ethics here.

Oh boy

[lyinhart]

I like PKD's work, but I'm getting negative vibes from this. L. Ron Hubbard "Dianetics" anyone?

very intelligent != crazy

[circletimessquare]

"so smart that it caused mental disorder"

no, this is an exoticization and a glamorization, like "a beautiful mind"

there are smart people

and there are crazy people

then there smart and crazy people

its an overlapping of types, not a cuase or effect anywhere in there

there is no such thing as smart -> crazy and there is no such thing as crazy -> smart

the man was brilliant and gifted. he had also had paranoid schizophrenic tendencies. this was not a cause of his intelligence, or an effect, this was merely a cofactor in what made philip k dick philip k dick. obviously he would not create what he created were he not paranoid and schizophrenic. joan of arc and joseph smith also had schizophrenic visions, and the world is radically changed because of them too. but it is, in the end, a sickness and a kind of suffering

stop exoticizing and glamoring mental illness as some sort of gift. philip k dick, for one, would not see it that way

Re:very intelligent != crazy

[abigor]

He also took a shitload of amphetemines (which produced every book written before 1970) and LSD, and smoked pot daily. I'm sure that helped.

Re:drug use degrades cognition, it does not enhanc

[ClioCJS]

Coming from someone that I marked as a foe [which I haven't done in a few years], it's nice to know that Slashdot knew in advance to remind me to not give a shit about comments from assholes like you. :)

BTW, I hope you don't drink coffee or alcohol.

Re:drug use degrades cognition, it does not enhanc

[ClioCJS]

p.s. Life is about having fun and enjoying life, not about achieving your maximum throughput as defined by your rankings. Insects are made to strictly produce; sentient species like humans have the added ability of being able to have fun. You might want to try it sometime.

Overrated.

[porky_pig_jr]

Not that I'm trying to offend Ph. K. Dick's fans, but IMHO he was just a schizofrenic. He does not offer any particular insights into the future. Yes, his writings are notably different from most of the SciFi garbage, but diferent doesn't mean better. It's OK, but would you expect any revelations from psychotic type of personality? I don't. Yeah, I read many of his books, just to see what's this all about. As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.

Stuff I do like: Heinlein. and S. Lem.

Re:Overrated.

[thomst]

As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.

Having met him in person, that was not my impression at all. He was the guest of honor at Octocon II in Santa Rosa, CA, in 1978, and I happened to recognize him as we passed one another, him on his way back to his hotel room, me on my way to the convention floor. I stopped him by saying, "Excuse me. I hope I'm not bothering you, but you're Phillip K. Dick, aren't you?" He admitted that he was and stood there fidgeting slightly, as if impatient to get this little unwanted intrusion into his privacy over with, so he could be on his way. "Again, I don't want to impose on you," I told him, "but I've always wanted to ask you, 'Where did you come up with the plot to "Ubik"?' It always seemed to me as though you started out to tell one story and wound up with quite a different tale than the one you set out to write."

PKD's eyes lit up, he became quite animated, and his tone of voice indicated that he was actually enjoying himself, as he replied, "You're right. I set out to write about a society where psionic powers - specifically telepathy - were developed to the point that they were routinely used in business for espionage and negotiation, and what the consequences of that would be. How they'd be regulated and licensed and so on. And then, about a dozen or so pages in, the typewriter just developed a mind of its own. It was automatic writing, really. I had no idea what was coming next, or how it would all turn out - I just sat there and let the story channel itself through me. I'd never experienced anything like that before, and it was really a very odd thing to witness!"

I told him that "Ubik" was probably my favorite of his books, because it was so surreal, and so unique among his works, and he confided that it was one of his personal favorites, too. I think I mentioned that I felt John Carpenter should have credited Ubik for inspiring the scene in "Dark Star" where the acting Captain consults the frozen corpse of the ship's original Captain, and I probably could have stood and talked to him for another hour or so, if I'd cared to push it, but I really didn't want to impose on him, so I thanked him for his time and for the insight into his novel and went on my way.

That was such a great convention.

Re:Overrated.

[Ephemeriis]

Not that I'm trying to offend Ph. K. Dick's fans, but IMHO he was just a schizofrenic. He does not offer any particular insights into the future. Yes, his writings are notably different from most of the SciFi garbage, but diferent doesn't mean better. It's OK, but would you expect any revelations from psychotic type of personality? I don't. Yeah, I read many of his books, just to see what's this all about. As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.

Stuff I do like: Heinlein. and S. Lem.

So, just because he suffered from mental illness, he can't be a good author?

I've never based my reading list on who writes the most accurate prophecies... Nor who has the fewest diagnoses...

I'm just interested in reading a good book. And PKD certainly delivers.

Re:Overrated.

[abigor]

He wasn't trying to offer insights into the future. So there's your problem.

great author

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

He was a great author. I've read "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" and "Ubik". I have yet to read "Scanner Darkly", "The Man In The High Castle", and his other great works.

Re:great author

[awing0]

I have really enjoyed a few of his books including 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.' I definitely HIGHLY recommend 'A Scanner Darkly' and 'Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said'.

On the other hand, I thought 'Maze of Death' lacked depth and was entirely predictable. I also didn't like 'The Broken Bubble', mainly I think because it deals with a lot of "human" issues and not much sci-fi. Possibly I didn't understand it.

I'm slowly working my way through all his books I can pick up at the library. After going this thread, I really want to read 'Ubik.'

The Exegesis Lives

[fortfive]

I love PKD works. Really love them--and V.A.L.I.S. is my favorite. I've read a few pages of the Exegesis, those published by the estate so far. They read kind of like Crowley's better works, some kind of hypnotic poetry. They help put me in touch with infinity and chaos.

Regarding astro's comments, I can't think of a better way to honor his memory than to celebrate his work--all of it.

Regarding his reputation being tarnished, well, whatever. The man was in a category by himself. The only other authors who have come even close to lighting up my cortex like that are H.P. Lovecraft and E.J. Gold--not Gibson, not Orson Scott Card, not Bob Wilson.

And of course my opinion should be of the greatest value to everyone.

p.s. best way to read the Exegesis is out loud.

Tacos

[dontbgay]

I don't know, does the latin cuisine have hallucinogenic properties or the ability to alter someone's perception of reality?

Well, aside from the spicy part. We all know about that.

yes

[circletimessquare]

and to do it at other people's expense, to risk becoming a zombie addict unable to maintain a job and keep a relationship, is not something i will allow, because i and many others don't want to support the useless zombies. we'd rather prevent them from becoming zombies: its cheaper

freeloading is not an option

Re:yes

[ClioCJS]

Nancy Reagan called. She wants 1980 back. Watch out for those crack babies!!

i drink coffee

[circletimessquare]

i've done psilocybin, marjiuana, and alcohol. all should be legal and none of which i mind, because they don't produce addicts aggressively (alcohol, and to a much lesser extent marijuana, are only moderately addicting)

but what i don't tolerate is the idea that the use of any of this, including coffee, somehow enhances your life, somehow enhances your pleasure. your pleasure is maximized when you lose all drugs in your life. complete abstinence is the ultimate drug

and furthermore, the highly addictive and inebriating drugs (not nicotine: its highly addictive but not inebriating, so you dont lose your job and relationships) mean you lose your job and your relationships: they must be waged war on forever, because it is not my job to take care of freeloaders. im talking about heroin, cocaine, meth: the on those drugs will never end

Re:that's right

[ClioCJS]

Mr. Mackie called. He wanted to let you know that drugs are bad, mmm'kay?

Re:recreational drugs

[ClioCJS]

You've drawn a line in an imaginary place that doesn't exist. "These drugs automatically ok, these drugs automatically bad."

Individuals don't exist! Only "macro" statistics. By your logic, driving should be banned, since it kills far more people than illegal drugs. Oh wait. They help us produce for the hive, therefore they're okay.

Re:sorry for the shorthand, here's the logic:

[ClioCJS]

wait - alcohol is moderate inebriation, and coke is high inebriation? BWAHAHAHHAHAHA. Anybody who knows better is going to laugh at your post. I sure am.

You might want to look up the government's own addiction statistics on crack and cocaine. I have.

Re:you're forgetting cocaine tea

[ClioCJS]

Because they all should be legal, and most of the arguments of prohibition [and costs of prohibition, even to non-drug users] apply to all drugs, not just an individual drug. For example, legalizing marijuana isn't going to take drug profits away from organized crime; they'll just sell more hard drugs. In fact, legalizing marijuana without legalizing cocaine is almost certain to increase the availability of cocaine, as they'll pedal more of it with the marijuana income gone. It's all or nothing.

"drug addiction is serious, and it destroys lives. completely independent of any social or legal policy. recognize the fucking obvious, or be a complete fool"

Recognize your own foolishness. You claim it's independent of any social or legal policy, yet then go on for great lengths about how different drugs should have different legal policy. It's almost like there's two of you, and one isn't listening to the other.

You do realize cocaine was only made illegal due to anti-black racism, in the same way that marijuana was mostly made illegal due to anti-hispanic racism, in the same way that opium was made illegal due to anti-asian racism. But hey! Let's pretend alcohol and nicotine should be legal, because they are the white man's drug. Let's go on a fishing expedition and make up tables to show how right we are that our own race's drugs are the best.

Re:i stopped reading here

[ClioCJS]

No, the root problem is that I don't agree with you. I IQ test at 150 and have studied the politics of the drug war pretty intensely for about 18 years. You basically just denied what I said and threw in an ad hominem attack.

You think the drug cartels are just going to lay down and stop operating if marijuana is legalized? Haha, good one.

The simple fact of the matter is the drug war does far more to hurt more people than any amount of drugs themselves. You do know we are the highest incinerator on the planet, and aruund half our prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. Meanwhile, California is out of money, and is letting murderers out of jail instead of pot smokers, and the drug war led the charge at erasing civil rights, setting up the stage for the war on terror to continue. But hey. Blame it all on the substance. When police lie and set people up, something that happens every day, ignore the freedom that is taken away, and whine about the other bees in your hive not producing as much honey as you think they should. Your ignorance on the matter becomes more apparent with each passing comment. I suggest you catch up on the last 15 year's news, and maybe read the DRCNet weekly news letter for a decade.

You do realize over 20,000 people have been killed in the drug war in Mexico since Calderon took office. But hey! It's the drug's fault! Everyone knows drugs make you murder! Gosh!

Re:marijuana should be legal

[ClioCJS]

You really need to revisit researching specific drugs and their effects on people, including statistics on addiction. "Simple exposure is enough to spiral lives into [badness]" is about as logically valid as "simple exposure to a bicycle is enough to spiral a life into a fatal motorcycle accident". Take your gateway theories and return them to the 1970s where they belong. Plenty of individuals can use something poorly [40,000 car accidents a year, for example], while others cannot. Even the government's own statistics -- that I looked up myself in the Virginia Tech library -- state that only 30% of crack users become addicted. It's actually much higher with nicotine -- which kills a greater number of people as well. And cocaine overdose? 1/3rd the per-capita rate for daily cocaine users than the overdose rate of daily alcohol users. Heroin does zero bodily damage: It's a fucking brand name. Meth is just another stimulant. You ever done stimulants? Either you're an addictive type who likes them all, or they are all just something to do that doesn't fill you with any desire to do them repeatedly. Your doctor quote is pretty meaningless, it's like saying truck drivers are the profession most likely to get in a car accident. More addicts if it's legal, really? If crack was legalized, you'd go out and smoke it tomorrow? No, didn't think so. Some more people might experiment, but if drugs were legal, more treatment options would there -- instead of treating a medical problem like a criminal problem. Funny thing how there are even drugs in prison. It's unwinnable, but idiots like you want to continue taking away our resources and freedoms chasing what is basically a prejudiced idea. Trans fats addict [new research] and kill more people, for chrissakes.

Re:LOL

[ClioCJS]

Let me fix that for you:

i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody should be banned from driving. Instead, prosecute people for the actual crimes they commit.

Your post is quite funny when read in the Michael Jackson from South Park voice. "You're being ignorant." He kept exclaiming it over and over again, but without evidence to back it up, it was just ridiculous.

Re:wow, i feel the power of your genius now

[ClioCJS]

You do realize the majority of addition is to legal prescriptions, right? You need to get off your anti-illegal-drug high-horse crusade. You're a laughable relic.

Re:that's a point that supports my position, moron

[ClioCJS]

I love the "if it's legal, more people will take it" basis for your arguments. You state it like it's such an obvious tautology that one would have to be a fucking idiot to not realize it. Yet one has merely to survey 18-21 year olds in nations where the drinking age is 18 (Europe) to know that no, something being legal doesn't automatically lead to increased use. Hell, the teenage marijuana use is higher in American than the Netherlands! But hey, keep ignoring that reality is not so black and white, and keep spouting out your 20th Century political buzz[*]-statements.

[*]No pun intended.

You even admit there will always be addicts. Yet jail solves this better than medical measures how? Because having to support the largest prison population in the world is better use of our tax dollars how?

Laws to save the casual idiot. Ahh, the folly of anti-freedom crusaders everywhere. Why can't we say fuck on tv? The children. Oh yes. Everything has to set up for the worst case. Everyone has to be reduced to the level of an idiot (or child). If 1 in 100,000 people abuse something (or even 7 in 10), then the other 99,999 (or even 3) have to have their freedoms limited by the stupids.

But hey, don't read actual information or news on the topic. Simply keep spouting 20th century rhetoric.

I say 20th century, because no real drugs were criminalized prior to then [I'm fudging it a little, cocaine prohibitions began around the 1880s], and by the 22nd century, the drug war will have been given up on.

I suggest starting with the links I already gave you.

Re:that's right!

[ClioCJS]

You just cited a war that was caused by prohibition as a reason to have prohibition. Really? Wow. Good one there, haha! Funny thing how that war ended with the tolerance of Opium. They say if you can't remember history, you're doomed to repeat it -- but I think you're living proof that it can be repeated even if you do remember it. If you want to make a point, show me how opium was more harmful to their society than an actual fucking war

Re:the war and the prohibition was caused

[ClioCJS]

Huh? Now you've totally lost me in your babble. If substance X causes existing policy A to become policy B, and policy B causes more destruction to society than substance X did in the first place, by your logic, we should blame substance X and not policy B. So let's see: If alcohol caused prohibition, and prohibition created gangsters, Al Capone, and one of the biggest crime eras in American history, then we should blame it all on alcohol and not prohibition. (Nevermind that beer was the first non-juice drink civilized mankind invented. A few idiots do something worse than the rest of us, there fore their idiocy is blamed on on their own personal responsibility, but the substance they used.)

You kind of remind me of the Christian ideal that evil itself is some tangible substance out there, and that when good people go evil, it is the substance of the evil out there by Satan that is causing it, and not their own stupid fucking decisions.

You need to watch the South Park on AA.

Re:thank you for the red herrings and strawmen

[ClioCJS]

And yet, since cocaine prohibition, availability has greatly increased, and price has decreased. This is in today's world, where transport is FAR easier than in the opium war days. If prohibition of cocaine increases it's availability, then by your logic, this should increase the addiction that you fear so much. Meanwhile, the prohibition causes those to not seek medical treatment for fear of prosecution. A prosecution whose results are often incarcerating people. Which costs $30-$50K per year per person. Yet somehow, if that person had a problem, or stopped working, he would be costing us even more than that? Then there's the freedom cost, which you continually ignore. The closure of civil rights in America more or less started when Nixon declared the war on drugs, though parts of it started in the early 1900s, along with prohibition. Are you really that blinded by your idealism?

You do realize that they decriminalized all drugs in Portugal. This is TODAY, with measurable effects. http://cryptogon.com/?p=9632 ... Gee, why didn't addiction go up, if you're so smart? Show me some current, real-world examples supporting your position. Because Portugal, in the past 5 yrs, proved all your arguments wrong. I really wish I'd bothered to bring this up earlier, but then again, it's funny how I can type a sentence or two and receive paragraphs of vitriol from you, and that's been kind of entertaining.

portugal doesn't prove anything

[circletimessquare]

except that it is slowly rebounding from a horrible situation, due to a whole number of factors, not only one dubious factor you allude to out of agenda cherry picking of your facts

furthermore, cocaine was not as widely available or historically well-known at the beginning of the timeline you cite. growth was a simple function of increased awareness and product of availability, regardless of legal landscape. again: arguing for my point about simple addictiveness of a drug being the deciding factor

but what inquiring minds want to know, is at what point do you stop living the absurdity, and acknowledge the simple obvious truth that the ADDICTIVE POTENTIAL of a substance, as a matter of simple biochemistry, is a factor. then maybe we can slowly hand hold and lead you to the next painfully obvious fact: for HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances, availability of the substance itself is the DOMINANT factor in harm

you keep trying to draw me into wider arguments about all sorts of drugs, and paint me in ridiculous social conservative corners, when i have repeatedly told you i am for marijuana and lsd legalization, and that i stand for illegality ONLY FOR heroin, cocaine, meth, etc: only the most highly addictive+inebriating substances. for on that deep end of the pool, there is where damage to lives and society by the DRUG ITSELF is greater than damage to society by social policy and laws

Re:portugal doesn't prove anything

[ClioCJS]

Quite simply, you don't love freedom enough, and you don't understand hard drugs except in a cartoonish manner, like the way most teabaggers are scared of socialism without really seeing it for what it is. I honestly think the 2nd paragraph in your response supports me, not you, but hey, I know you're not going to agree with that. Again, potential != realization. You don't criminalize putting anvils at the tops of buildings because some people drop them on Bugs Bunny, based on their POTENTIAL to do harm, anymore than you ban guns or cars from their potential [and reality] to do harm. And that was a pretty sad response about Portugal.

i love freedom immensely, it motivates my opinion

[circletimessquare]

and i understand that the bars that addiction creates in your mind is more freedom destroying than the most fascist autocratic regime orwell could imagine in the furthest reaches of his imagination. you take a mind that might have explored new avenues in art, literature, music, science... and instead you have a mind that is on a constant interruption circuit "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..." and unable to be the person they were before the addiction

in fact, the tool of the most oppressive regime possible, to rob people of their free will to the most maximum extent, would be compulsory addiction to morphine. the fight against highly addictive+inebriating substances is, in the entire history of mankind's sordid experience with drugs, on a personal and societal level, the essence of the fight for freedom

and actually, yes: if you placed anvils at the top of a building, and the wind shifted a tarp near one and knocked it off the building, you would be found criminally culpable for not recognizing the common sense danger implicit in that arrangement. why is this simple example of responsibility a strange concept to you?

tell me now again: the obvious science of addiction of something like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.: this means absolutely nothing to you in how these substances are treated? is this your honest opinion?

Re:i love freedom immensely, it motivates my opini

[ClioCJS]

P1: Yup. All drug users do is do more drugs while staring at the wall. Excellent summary. Fortunately we have a great deal of artistic works, unix [lsd], and all the real world inventions based on Star Trek [amphetamines] to prove you wrong. There's more to it than your vilified strawman.

P2: Too bad no dictators have tried that, eh?

P3: So the anvils are on tarps now? What about gargoyles?

Treated in what sense. Medically? Legally? Ethicly? In the end, the effects on freedom and choice are the same, and even 1 substance prohibited in an over-the-top manner is enough to be used a pretense for trampling on most amendments in the constitution. The substance doesn't even have to be known for this statement to be universally true. Funny thing how poisons aren't criminalized; it's not necessary to criminalize things that have actual harm past a truly harmful threshold.

artists do art

[circletimessquare]

in SPITE OF their drug use, not BECAUSE of it. drug use by artists is contemporaneous with them being characters on the edge of society, which leads them to do great art AND take drugs due to various personality issues. but drug use does not CAUSE art. even artists like william s burroughs or hunter s thompson: their art was from periods of sobriety, crawling out of their overindulgence, before slipping back in. imagine what burroughs or thompson could have done if they remained drug free!

and you're saying that laws against drug use is merely a ploy to steal more rights, is that it? so there's no observance of the effects of addiction on people's lives and a desire to stop that negative effect. nah... that's completely bogus. there's only the scary bogeyman of a control freak who wants to stop everyone from having any fun... just because that's what they do

you're absurd

Re:artists do art

[ClioCJS]

No, it's because of it. Perhaps you've never created anything while intoxicated yourself, but you can't discount that it happens. In some cases, it is in spite of, of course. But not all. I know it's convenient to think in binary.

Hunter S. Thompson and William S. Burroughs might have been something. But I doubt they'd be remembered like they are today.

Laws against drug use are a ploy to steal rights? First off, remember, most drugs were criminalized over racism against the groups using it. In those cases, it certainly was, in part, a ploy to steal rights from a specific race. But it's scarcely a ploy: A law prohibiting X takes away your previous right to do X. That's not a ploy, that's overly what a law is. Basically, some people who do X fuck up, so let's take away the ability to do X from other people as well. If drunk driving accidents increased and they banned all cars, even from those who never drank, it would be the same type of mentality. Legislation via bad apple example. If our laws have to be designed for the worst of us, we may as well put on a rubber suit and a helmet right now.

Re:drugs and racism

[ClioCJS]

Forced? Huh? Citation please.

By your own logic, you actually should also be against alcohol being legal. It causes far more harm to society than cocaine. Snicker.

Ahh, the drugs themselves are creating the suffering. Nope. Don't agree. They're just drugs, sitting there. Neutral, like a gun or a sandwich. It takes people to mis-use them for that to happen, and most people don't mis-use most substances. In the end, you want to control the freedoms of the responsible citing the folly of the irresponsible. It's a despicable position.

Re:so what about plutonium

[ClioCJS]

If you show me the recreational anthrax or plutonium user, you might have a valid comparison to make.

Otherwise, you're just continuing on in the rantings of a 20th century freedom hater. You keep repeating the same things over and over: Oh my god. Someone's life can be ruined over it. Therefore it should be illegal. While ignoring alcohol, which you put in the should-be-legal category! What a laughingstock you are.

why do we have any government regulation?

[circletimessquare]

for example, the argument with wall st is: if a guy loses his cash on a bad investment, that's his problem. why intrude?

and the answer is: because the whole damn economy can go into meltdown in an unregulated marketplace, like it did in 2008

in other words, the argument that any negative consequences of certain behavior is small, or only effects the individual, is bullshit. we regulate anthrax and plutonium because the consequences of using that stuff and screwing up is death and destruction for people besides yourself. we have spped limits because the consequences of crasing is death and destruction to more than just yourself

and free and unfettered access to the THE MOST (enough with the alcohol red herring, asshole) addictive and inebriating substances known to man WILL create an army of zombies that i have to pay to feed and house. so just like the economy, the maleffects of poor personal choices do not affect only the indivudal, they affect society. THAT's the source for regulation, not some social conservative freakout

if you can understand why the economy needs regulation from a personal choice/ societal effect point of view, why can't you understand that also applies to THE MOST addictive and inebriating substances known to man? why can't you see that more access to something like heroin inevitably leads to more addicts who can't house and feed themselves, as a simple consequence of the simple pharamcological facts of what heroin does to the mind and body?

i don't want vast swaths of my society reduced to zombiehood because you somehow erroneously believe you are an island and your bad choices affects no one but yourself

Re:why do we have any government regulation?

[ClioCJS]

P1-3: Flawed metaphor. We don't ban individual play in the stock market, while we ban individual play in the drug market. Individuals are allowed to fail all they want in the stock market. You're confusing regulation with prohibition. Stock market operations have rules: Just like liquor distribution has rules. Neither alcohol nor stock purchases are banned due to the acts of individuals. The economic crash we've had is due to corporate greed, it doesn't mean nobody should be able to play the market anymore, nor does it mean corporations don't get to play the market anymore. You're using something that was never prohibited as an excuse for prohibition. Amazing logic you have there.

P4: Alcohol is not at all a red herring. It's a drug, just like any other. In fact, it's fatal overdose rate is triple that for daily users when compared to daily cocaine users, and more people die from alcohol each year than all illegal drugs combined. Again, you selectively throw out MAJOR data points (like alcohol) and call them red herrings because they don't fit with your invalid logic.

ARMY OF ZOMBIES! LOL. We have the largest prison system in the world due to our drug war. These people aren't on drugs [except those that got them into the prison, which does happen], and we're paying over $30K/yr in taxes to house these people. EVEN IF THEY WERE HOMELESS they would not cost society that much per year. You've only served to illustrate my point further by indicating your problem is paying for it, then giving a solution that causes you to pay more. Do you have a fucking clue about how much money has been spent in the drug war, vs how much users of alcohol and cigarettes have added expenses into the medical system? The ratio is huge. 1) Alcohol. 2) Portugal. 3) Freedom costs money.

It's hilarious that you are stating this in fiscal terms, when we've spent more on the drug war than any country in the world, and spend more on prisons. You are saying "we shoudln't allow people to do this because it will cost X, so let's spend X*Y [where Y > 1] instead!" Totally idiotic logic that flies in the face of a reality that you apparently cover your eyes from.

Zombiehood! Somebody's been watching too much Reefer Madness. You sound like a 1980s PSA. You must be into some kind of false reality, where you decide things are a certain way, and ignore all information to the contrary. I started out as an anti-drug crusader too, but then I realized how fucked up my own logic was back in my online debates that I had in the 1980s. OH I SEE, you're a Christian. That explains a lot about covering your eyes and pretending in false realities. That also explains why you consider evil to be something that exists in intimate objects. It's an extension of animism and demonic possession. Shit that makes sense for Christians, but not for people who don't believe in sky fairies.

Sorry, I'm whipping the ad hominems out now. I've noticed you had a major problem with logic, and now I see you're a Christian, which explains a lot. You base your whole existence on illogic, no wonder you're scared of satan's evil zombie hoard. Jesus used cannabis, and Jesus can suck my dick.