By "Carrier IQ", I was meaning the software, not the company. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
In my defense, I want to quote, ipsi literis, the article I linked where I understood and used myself "Carrier IQ" as the software, not the company:
To be clear, the “information” I’m talking about are the Android intents logged by Carrier IQ, discovered by TrevE, which include your location, when you open an app and what app you open, what media you play and when you play it, when you receive an SMS, when you receive a call, when your screen turns off or on, and what keys you press in your phone dialer.
That article referenced another one, where the term "Carrier IQ" is explicitly used meaning a software:
And the spy and invasion of privacy saga continues, but this time XDA Recognized Developer TrevE seems to have hit the very core of most of what is happening with devices. You may recall from a few articles back that we started talking about something called CIQ or Carrier iQ.
My rationale is that If the thing logs something, they must first receive it from somewhere.
Since I failed to understand if I'm dealing with a Apple fanboy, or a informed and ironic slashdotter, some random facts:
Xerox invented the Mouse and GUI.
I may be wrong, but AFAIK BBC and Acorn are the ones that first talked about this educational computers thing in early 80's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro
I may be silly, but the increasing population of applefags is comparable of the microserfs related phenomena on the 90's: I remember a weird musical ad claiming Bill Gates as the "inventor of the Internet" that used to appears in Brazil on... DISCOVERY KIDS.
(I found the spanish version on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZhA6m5CK98 - I don't know if the spanish version did such claim, but I clearly remember the portuguese version claiming Bill Gates as the guy that invented Internet!)
There's no way a so well armed country goes downhill without dragging the rest of the world too.
We can argue that China would be a long term threat, but while USA have control of an fine working army, it will be on the top of the food chain - someone must buy China's products or it will not manage to fund their army.
USA can loose control on some minor, punctual issues - but never on what really matters.
Isn't it interesting that the only OS that sent the info out by default was Android? iPhone didn't. While they were there too, Carrier IQ was disabled by default.
So interesting as the fact that only Noth America seems to have Carrier IQ on their Android devices...
And after all, Carrier IQ was just Google Analytics to mobiles. [...]
but you blame tobacco and alcohol for the presence of a black market?
Just for the sake of completeness: I don't blame tobacco and alcohol for the presence of a black market. I blame people desiring the cheapest (without any other concerning) tobacco and alcohol for the presence a black market.
It's the same about thugs and drug cartels: I blame the people that sticks money on their (thugs and cartels) asses for their existence.
That's one of the reasons you come across as non-native, even if fluent. Your word choice isn't colored by general use, even if technically correct. "twisted" would be a more appropriate word for what you meant, and pervert in that context would point to moral twisting, more than just any general deviation.
Note taken.
As House MD said once: "Read less, more TV". I never thought that I would use it on myself. =D
Spoken like a Catholic. A condom is a "perversion" like a tissue is a "perversion" of a sneeze. You are asserting that the "purpose" of sex is making babies. There is no "purpose" to sex. It is a desire instilled by genetics to procreate, but that doesn't mean the "purpose" is procreation. The "purpose" is to satisfy a desire for orgasm. That "desire" is instilled via genetics for the purpose of procration, but sex is about procreation like sneezing is about curing you of a viral infection.
Man, we're going metaphysical now. =D
You are right, but I'm right also. Defining "purpose" is essentially arbitrary (on the pedantic meaning of the word), as different people (or even the same ones!), from different perspectives, can state differently the "purpose" of the same thing - and all of them could be equally right (or wrong!) given a adequate (or not) subset of the reality to discuss on.
Again, you assert the "truth" in a manner best suited for your convenience, and without concern about other options or other's opinions.
There's no "Truth" - only personals, limited (and sometimes, shared) versions from it.
You're right. I have no concern about other people opinions because... these opinions are theirs, not mines! All I can do is to try to keep my mind open to these opinions (given that their owners are willing to communicate them to me) and, occasionally, reshape my owns once I feel the need.
Your uneasiness about my "strong, convenient" opinions is a situation that belongs to you, not to me. I don't have any problem with any "strong, convenient" opinion from nobody, as it will not affect me or my beliefs unless I let them.
And I will only let them affect my beliefs if I think they are right (or righter) than my owns, when so I will just don't care if they are strong, convenient or fallen from Mars.
This does not prevents me to criticize such opinions, but since no one is obliged to accept - or even listen to! - my statements, I'm also don't care, as I do not intent to catechize some one, but to trial my opinions by challenging the ones that sounds incompatible.
As a side note, you are not the first one that criticizes me about this - don't feel alone in the world!;-)
(By the way, don't misunderstand my "I don't care" with "I don't appreciate" - I don't care in the sense that I will not be bothered if you don't reshape your opinions due to mines - to tell the true, I will not bother even if you do - but I really appreciate the fact you're sharing your opinions to me and, equally important, bothering to challenge my own).
Marijuana *can* cause psychological dependence, but granted - tobacco too.
Again, you never addressed the ice cream comparison, and pretended it wasn't serious. Food can cause a psychological dependence such that people compulsively over eat, causing more health problems than all dugs combined (at least currently in the USA, your country may vary, but inappropriate eating kills more people than all drugs combined).
I didn't understood at that time. Eating abuse around here is commonly associated to fast food and similar fat/sodium rich foods.
We do not have the obesity problem US is facing now. Yet.
It's possible that we would face this problem but with less severity - "healthy" food is cheaper here. By the price of a BigMac, you can eat a balanced meal (vegetables, meat and cereals) on a self-service restaurant.
IIRC, obesity incidence is a bit higher on the poorer population, probably due to their lesser education (our basic education is a tragedy - or a really bad joke, if you works on education).
What does not means that constant use of marijuana is safe, but granted, tobacco and alcohol neither.
Though composed of English words, that sentence is unparsable.
Sorry. Let me try again from scratch: It's nearly impossible to abuse marijuana, unless the poor bastard is masochist, suicidal or have some serious psychological issues (mainly anxiety). But this does not mean that marijuana consumption is safe - but, granted, nor tobacco and alcohol consumption is.
(Portuguese speakers forms sentences differently than English ones, but some English phrases can be, correctly, formed in a way also valid on Portuguese - but not all of them, and sometimes we end up writing white noise instead.)
As I said in some other posting, I think that we can see marijuana being legalized in a few years.
Never. Politiicans will never admit failure. The people don't care enough for the fight it would take to get it through. At best, there would be a minor shift to libertarian that gets it through, but it's never going to be a core issue. And it won't be going through any time soon.
Weird enough, there're people seriously fighting for marijuana legalization here at Brazil. We are not too far from reaching a civil disobedience situation, in a very similar fashion did by Americans on the Prohibition (of alcohol).
People around here doesn't really care about it neither, but we have a cultural resistance to Regulations - due the 1970's Military Dictatorship perhaps. People tends to grudge anything that was imposed by the Government at that time, and our drugs legislation is one of the dictatorship inheritage.
You used homosexuality and porn watchers on your argument due my use of the verb "pervert" on mine.
Strictly speaking, "to pervert" something is to derive it from its fundamental/natural meaning or objective.
Since the natural purpose of having sex is making babies, using a condom is a perversion - as its objective is to do not making babies while having sex.
Philosophers, mainly the one from the earlier centuries (or at least the ones I used to read!), tend to use the verb "pervert" on that meaning, and not on the currently popular one used to nominate some sexual practices or choices.
And when you look back, what do you think it would be like if the drugs were free and dispensed at the store alongside aspirin? Would the "Bad things" have happened if people weren't having to deal with criminals and steal and such to get the money for the high prices for illegal substances? From the US experience with Prohibition, the answer is "no", but I'm sure you'll discard that answer if you find it inconvenient.
If drugs were yet more cheaper and freely available, things probably would gone worst. I saw people (a boyfriend of my sister) bleeding on his nose on my bathroom after sneezing cocaine (bastard, he did it on my house without asking), and then going to the night crashing the car and hurting people. His brother died in another car accident, some years later
I saw fathers leaving wife and son alone on home, while going out to get high with "friends".
I lost friends in car accidents due to intoxicated drivers. Friends of mine had relatives heavily injured (and impaired for life) on that same accidents.
I know I already mentioned it, but I will mention again: Manaus is (or were, I don't live there anymore) one major cocaine entry point in Brazil. Cocaine is very cheap and easily available there, to the point in that it was possible to see cocaine being served together with scotch and wine on some college parties.
On the aftermath, the drug users that were rich could walk away from the mess as they could afford the medical care needed to survive healthy the experience (but some few of them must live with some health problems for the rest of their lives).
The users that could not afford the medical care, well... They just keep going on the best they can.
Of course the major part of these guys managed to walk way almost intact. But a good, significantly part of them did not - counting friends, acquaintances and their relatives, I will guess that 16 to 18 people died or got heavily impaired somewhat due to, direct or indirect, drugs abuse on an universe of... hummm... 120 or 130 people I can remember somehow (Orkut and Facebook to the rescue!).
Talking with relatives that always lived here in São Paulo, things are not that harsh. People dies and get health problems everywhere and all the time, but the incidence on my social circle are one order of magnitude higher than on theirs.
Cocaine and some other drugs are somewhat more expensive here in São Paulo (the popular drug here appears to be marijuana).
I would be naive to conclude that drugs are the only reason for that, but I would be even more naive by ruling them out from the equation.
If irresponsible were a felony, we'd all be in jail.
On a second thought, you are right. I would got a life sentence for some things I did when younger...:-)
It may not be polite, but perhaps the issue is that I was brought up in the US, and you were brought up in a 3rd world country
Reality is rarely polite. And you're right. Brazil is experiencing a severe ethical crisis for, let's say, 30 years at least.
It depends on the sickness. "dumb" doesn't harm society that much.[..]
Well, I think that dumbness is one of the worst "social sickness" possible. The perpetual reelection of a very nasty cast of corrupt politicians in some states in Brazil is a prove of that. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
We must take some care about some subjects, as this "social sickness" matter can be badly misused. Homosexuality was never a social danger - sociopathy, on the other hand, is.
Dishonesty can be hugely disruptive, selfishness too.
Imagine living on a society where one can commonly hit a pedestrian with his car/motocycle and leave without hassle, as very few people are willing to "waste his time" going to the police to testify the event - the victim end up speaking alone
Or else a society in which you must check and recheck every transaction on every place, as people is used to steal small amounts of your change, charge more than the regular price of the product or even deliver a bit less of the product you're buying.
Marijuana *can* cause psychological dependence, but granted - tobacco too.
And you are right - it's nearly impossible to abuse marijuana, unless the poor bastard is masochist, suicidal or have some serious psychological issues (mainly anxiety).
What does not means that constant use of marijuana is safe, but granted, tobacco and alcohol neither.
As I said in some other posting, I think that we can see marijuana being legalized in a few years.
This does not had worked well on my life. I'm getting better results with "Verify, and then trust".
Our arguments reflects our beliefs, and I think we're reaching some core personal concepts too much bounded to personal experiences to be disputed.
But at least, they can be acknowledged and understood.
You are (from my perspective) arguing that *most* people are not intelligent and not decent. I disagree with your assessment of the human condition.
An american philosopher (I forgot who) once said something like: "What's percentage of sick people a society can sustain without getting sick itself?"
We don't need that most people be dumb and indecent. It's enough than a sufficient number of them exists to pervert the society. I believe that this "sufficient number" is smaller than you think.
Where I wrote "secondary countries and regions", please read "laggards, archaic countries and regions" - I'm really lost here, I could not think on a good English translation for "países arcaicos e anacrônicos".
And I asserting what the link says, and you quoted: "Consequently the recreational abuse of opium,"
We can argue in order to reach a consensus about what is "use", and what is "abuse".
Let's begin with mine:
Use : making (recreational, in our case) use of something in a way that does not perverts its original (recreational, in our case) intent.
Example of alcohol use: occasionally getting drunk with friends getting a good chat or some other fun time.
Abuse: perverting the original intent of the drug.
Example: getting drunk everyday, and suffering from this, as you cannot stop yourself from doing that.
Marijuana, Cocaine, Opium, Alcoho, whatever - the intended purpose of all them is to get some pleasure.
As soon as the subject gets addicted, and starts to use the drugs just because he can not stop, getting so or more hurts as he gets pleasure (if any pleasure is got at all - some drugs stops working, while still being necessary to the metabolism), I define it as an abuse.
The nowadays word is a big, messy culture with a lot of things in common. Putting aside some minor, secondary countries and regions - like Africa, North Korea, Afganstan, etc, we all share a lot of the modern thinking and desires.
There're cultural nuances, but nothing that could put Brazil aside Japan (I'm carefully avoiding using USA on this matter, as I already found some north-americans that really thinks USA is a civilization apart from the rest of the world).
The USA on the XIX Century were a rural country, still fighting for territorial occupation. You were still killing your natives for land at that time. USA started their way to be a World biggest Military and Industrial Power only during 2nd World War.
XXI Century Brazil is closer to the XXI Century USA than the XXI Century USA is close to the XIX Century USA.
And, by the way, we are all humans. Suffering on poor China is the same suffering on the poor Africa, and the pollution on the rich China is the same pollution on the Mexico. Cultural nuances shapes diffident solutions for the same problems.
I had already guessed Brazil to be your country of origin or residence, though you haven't explicitly said so, but your recent references to locations in Brazil and Portuguese confirm it.
As a side note, I lived 25 years on Manaus, Amazon. Drugs were cheaper there, as Manaus is one of the entry point from drugs made by drugs cartels on Colombia et all.
Man, I saw a lot of bad things happening to people that uses drugs. Not all directly caused by drugs, granted, but... It's hard do not associate one thing with the other.
The thing I find interesting is that the pro-prohibitionists I speak to generally imply that if something was legal, "everyone" would do it, but when questioned, they say they would not, thus proving their own argument wrong.
I totally agree. However, the same applies with the other side. A lot of drugs users from my social circles does not understand how I can accept their choices without condoning it. The faces of the guys that offered me marijuana last time was simply remarkable. I had to take a walk around the show, as their uncomfortable was undisguisable.
So the arguments of "it would be a massive problem because *everyone* would do it" are neecssarily wrong. A few more people may try it, but if it's legal, then they can hold jobs and such (yes, in the US, people are fired for getting high outside business hours).
I agree.
What I disagree with you is that "just a few people wound try it". I think that a lot of irresponsible people would be going to abuse drugs, with all the splash damage inherent to it. I also think that this same irresponsible people are also lazy enough to seek drugs if it would be too hard or too costly, preferring being irresponsible with some other less damaging (and legal) drugs.
Using your "drunk driving" rationale, if being irresponsible were a felony, drugs prohibition would be useless as the core problem would be already dealt with.
But while irresponsibility is legal, I can't see how to legalize all drugs as you defends.
"It's arbitrary" is an indication that it's inherently inadequately justified, until proven otherwise. The reasons marijuana is illegal now all apply *more* to alcohol than marijuana, yet alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. That's stupid and illogical ("arbitrary" is a pejorative which implies "illogical" and "unjustified" in common use).
I think that I finally understand what you means for "arbitrary", but I beg your pardon as I disagree of the inherent evilness of it.
You appears to have profound dislike about what can be called "synthetic reasoning", and I'm guessing that you blindly (I know the use of this word is commonly pejorative in English, but I do not want to be pejorative - I just could not found a better word) thrust on rational reasoning.
The problem is that rational reasoning is not inherently better than the synthetic ones. Given an wrong or bad axiom, all the cards castle falls apart when applied to reality. Sometimes you just can't reach a valid axiom in order to make your rational reasoning works (being pedantic, your rationale can be always correct, but not always valid).
So, I cannot accept your statement of "it's illogical or unjustified, so it's bad". Logical and justified things can be bad also.
I can accept, however, that you find all the thing plain stupid (I can even agree sometimes) - but by doing that, you would be being arbitrary too - and I cannot accept that you can, on good faith, do a thing yourself that you not condone on others (exception made on some sexual practices I love being done by my women, but wouldn't do it myself - since I presuming you're male, this does not applies either!).:-D
This is the main reason I though badly about you for while (things changed on the drunk driving discussion, when I realized I was wrong about it - so the "problem" should be something else).
I see a blocking problem on our "arbitrary" discussion, as I'm getting more and more confused on its use on your argument. Sometimes, we need to be picky in order to pursue a misunderstanding^w understanding about what the f*ck we are arguing about! =D
So, please, let's forget a while our argument about marijuana, and shift it to an argument about the argument itself (God, we are going to meta-argumenting - how slashdotting can this be?)
arbitrary [ahr-bi-trer-ee] arbitrary [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -traries.
adjective 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. 2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. 3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government. 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment. 5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
I don't think definition number 1 can be, correctly, applied to your argument as most drugs ban are condoned by the majority of the population - not to mention that the guys that ruled the ban were elected as the people representatives. You can argue that people are being misguided to elect representatives that do not represent our real interests (and you'll probably be right), but this is another problem.
Definition number 2 was applicable in the past, but not anymore. Explicit legislation exists today to ban some drugs (again, you can argue about the correctness of the legislation, but again, it's anther problem).
Definition number 3 does not applies neither, as if it applies we simply could not be having this conversation. As a side note, Brazilian drugs law in the 1970`s were arbitrary by this definition, as any public pro-drugs statement would be classified as "drugs apology", a federal felony!
Maybe the definition number 4 would apply - but again, the majority of people either support or does not care about the issue, so I don't think the "unsupported" applies. Since there're ongoing efforts on studying the matter, the "unreasonable" does not applies neither. So it would be a weak argumentation.
Exampling, the Prohibition of alcohol can be tagged as arbitrary, because the people didn't support it at all - definitions 1, 2 and 3 full applies here (and 4 partially, as it was unsupported by most part of the people).
5 and 6 are completely off our topic, I hope we do not have to argue about it.:-)
It appears that (presuming the reliability of the text), at least on Tennessee, there were drugs problems (in a similar fashion we have nowadays) on that times. What appears to corroborate my statement: US already had a drug problem in the 1800's - it's not weird that a third world guy appears to know (and research) more about US history than some Americans? =P
On the other hand, your ideals of drug legalizing are equally old, as this very same document states:
The only endeavor at legalization to be attempted in Tennessee was swept aside by the national law which demonized unfortunate addicts, punishing them for acquiring an addiction for which they should more reasonably have been treated. Once the use of drugs became a social issue, then, Christian-based morality demanded the penalization of addicts instead of their treatment.
Had you made some research instead of all that ranting and raving, you could made a very impressive argument - probably one that would shut me up as I don't know american's history well enough to do a good refutal.
Then I assert you do not know the definition of "arbitrary." Or, I'd say you know the word as the dictionary defines it, but, for English, that doesn't work
Ok, another language barrier bites me in the butt.
I will assume "Arbitrary" as a decision made based on synthetic reasoning ("the day starts at sunrise" versus "the day starts at sundown", by example).
However, by accepting your definition of "Arbitrary", I simply can't see any evilness inherent to it.
So, yes. I can now accept that marijuana ban is arbitrary. I can accept that alcohol ban was arbitrary. But I do not accept the "It's arbitrary" argument a valid one on this discussion.
Things can be good or bad, being arbitrary or not. This simply does not matter.
Slashdot Mirror
By "Carrier IQ", I was meaning the software, not the company. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
In my defense, I want to quote, ipsi literis, the article I linked where I understood and used myself "Carrier IQ" as the software, not the company:
That article referenced another one, where the term "Carrier IQ" is explicitly used meaning a software:
My rationale is that If the thing logs something, they must first receive it from somewhere.
Since I failed to understand if I'm dealing with a Apple fanboy, or a informed and ironic slashdotter, some random facts:
Xerox invented the Mouse and GUI.
I may be wrong, but AFAIK BBC and Acorn are the ones that first talked about this educational computers thing in early 80's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro
Floppy disks were in use since the 60's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk - but granted, Apple managed to kill it.
Bresenham worked at IBM when invented the algorithm : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bresenham's_line_algorithm
The MACH, the Apple's microkernel of choice, was developed by the Carnegie Mellon University starting in the 80’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel)
I may be silly, but the increasing population of applefags is comparable of the microserfs related phenomena on the 90's: I remember a weird musical ad claiming Bill Gates as the "inventor of the Internet" that used to appears in Brazil on... DISCOVERY KIDS.
(I found the spanish version on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZhA6m5CK98 - I don't know if the spanish version did such claim, but I clearly remember the portuguese version claiming Bill Gates as the guy that invented Internet!)
ergo everybody is a fanboy!
...until the United States loses this power.[...]
Sorry, but nops.
There's no way a so well armed country goes downhill without dragging the rest of the world too.
We can argue that China would be a long term threat, but while USA have control of an fine working army, it will be on the top of the food chain - someone must buy China's products or it will not manage to fund their army.
USA can loose control on some minor, punctual issues - but never on what really matters.
(And no, I'm not happy with that)
Isn't it interesting that the only OS that sent the info out by default was Android? iPhone didn't. While they were there too, Carrier IQ was disabled by default.
So interesting as the fact that only Noth America seems to have Carrier IQ on their Android devices...
And after all, Carrier IQ was just Google Analytics to mobiles. [...]
Google Analytics ANALyses every keystroke on your computer? Because Carrier IQ receives every dialer keystroke on the device.
(I'm not saving Google's face here)
Well.... At least Chinese appears to do gauge the customer. :-)
Their quality assurance is very good, but not always in the interest of the buyer.
Marvelous, I could not said it better. :-)
but you blame tobacco and alcohol for the presence of a black market?
Just for the sake of completeness: I don't blame tobacco and alcohol for the presence of a black market. I blame people desiring the cheapest (without any other concerning) tobacco and alcohol for the presence a black market.
It's the same about thugs and drug cartels: I blame the people that sticks money on their (thugs and cartels) asses for their existence.
That's one of the reasons you come across as non-native, even if fluent. Your word choice isn't colored by general use, even if technically correct. "twisted" would be a more appropriate word for what you meant, and pervert in that context would point to moral twisting, more than just any general deviation.
Note taken.
As House MD said once: "Read less, more TV". I never thought that I would use it on myself. =D
Spoken like a Catholic. A condom is a "perversion" like a tissue is a "perversion" of a sneeze. You are asserting that the "purpose" of sex is making babies. There is no "purpose" to sex. It is a desire instilled by genetics to procreate, but that doesn't mean the "purpose" is procreation. The "purpose" is to satisfy a desire for orgasm. That "desire" is instilled via genetics for the purpose of procration, but sex is about procreation like sneezing is about curing you of a viral infection.
Man, we're going metaphysical now. =D
You are right, but I'm right also. Defining "purpose" is essentially arbitrary (on the pedantic meaning of the word), as different people (or even the same ones!), from different perspectives, can state differently the "purpose" of the same thing - and all of them could be equally right (or wrong!) given a adequate (or not) subset of the reality to discuss on.
Again, you assert the "truth" in a manner best suited for your convenience, and without concern about other options or other's opinions.
There's no "Truth" - only personals, limited (and sometimes, shared) versions from it.
You're right. I have no concern about other people opinions because... these opinions are theirs, not mines! All I can do is to try to keep my mind open to these opinions (given that their owners are willing to communicate them to me) and, occasionally, reshape my owns once I feel the need.
Your uneasiness about my "strong, convenient" opinions is a situation that belongs to you, not to me. I don't have any problem with any "strong, convenient" opinion from nobody, as it will not affect me or my beliefs unless I let them.
And I will only let them affect my beliefs if I think they are right (or righter) than my owns, when so I will just don't care if they are strong, convenient or fallen from Mars.
This does not prevents me to criticize such opinions, but since no one is obliged to accept - or even listen to! - my statements, I'm also don't care, as I do not intent to catechize some one, but to trial my opinions by challenging the ones that sounds incompatible.
As a side note, you are not the first one that criticizes me about this - don't feel alone in the world! ;-)
(By the way, don't misunderstand my "I don't care" with "I don't appreciate" - I don't care in the sense that I will not be bothered if you don't reshape your opinions due to mines - to tell the true, I will not bother even if you do - but I really appreciate the fact you're sharing your opinions to me and, equally important, bothering to challenge my own).
Marijuana *can* cause psychological dependence, but granted - tobacco too.
Again, you never addressed the ice cream comparison, and pretended it wasn't serious. Food can cause a psychological dependence such that people compulsively over eat, causing more health problems than all dugs combined (at least currently in the USA, your country may vary, but inappropriate eating kills more people than all drugs combined).
I didn't understood at that time. Eating abuse around here is commonly associated to fast food and similar fat/sodium rich foods.
We do not have the obesity problem US is facing now. Yet.
It's possible that we would face this problem but with less severity - "healthy" food is cheaper here. By the price of a BigMac, you can eat a balanced meal (vegetables, meat and cereals) on a self-service restaurant.
IIRC, obesity incidence is a bit higher on the poorer population, probably due to their lesser education (our basic education is a tragedy - or a really bad joke, if you works on education).
What does not means that constant use of marijuana is safe, but granted, tobacco and alcohol neither.
Though composed of English words, that sentence is unparsable.
Sorry. Let me try again from scratch: It's nearly impossible to abuse marijuana, unless the poor bastard is masochist, suicidal or have some serious psychological issues (mainly anxiety). But this does not mean that marijuana consumption is safe - but, granted, nor tobacco and alcohol consumption is.
(Portuguese speakers forms sentences differently than English ones, but some English phrases can be, correctly, formed in a way also valid on Portuguese - but not all of them, and sometimes we end up writing white noise instead.)
As I said in some other posting, I think that we can see marijuana being legalized in a few years.
Never. Politiicans will never admit failure. The people don't care enough for the fight it would take to get it through. At best, there would be a minor shift to libertarian that gets it through, but it's never going to be a core issue. And it won't be going through any time soon.
Weird enough, there're people seriously fighting for marijuana legalization here at Brazil. We are not too far from reaching a civil disobedience situation, in a very similar fashion did by Americans on the Prohibition (of alcohol).
People around here doesn't really care about it neither, but we have a cultural resistance to Regulations - due the 1970's Military Dictatorship perhaps. People tends to grudge anything that was imposed by the Government at that time, and our drugs legislation is one of the dictatorship inheritage.
Man, I just noted it now. Sorry.
You used homosexuality and porn watchers on your argument due my use of the verb "pervert" on mine.
Strictly speaking, "to pervert" something is to derive it from its fundamental/natural meaning or objective.
Since the natural purpose of having sex is making babies, using a condom is a perversion - as its objective is to do not making babies while having sex.
Philosophers, mainly the one from the earlier centuries (or at least the ones I used to read!), tend to use the verb "pervert" on that meaning, and not on the currently popular one used to nominate some sexual practices or choices.
And when you look back, what do you think it would be like if the drugs were free and dispensed at the store alongside aspirin? Would the "Bad things" have happened if people weren't having to deal with criminals and steal and such to get the money for the high prices for illegal substances? From the US experience with Prohibition, the answer is "no", but I'm sure you'll discard that answer if you find it inconvenient.
If drugs were yet more cheaper and freely available, things probably would gone worst. I saw people (a boyfriend of my sister) bleeding on his nose on my bathroom after sneezing cocaine (bastard, he did it on my house without asking), and then going to the night crashing the car and hurting people. His brother died in another car accident, some years later
I saw fathers leaving wife and son alone on home, while going out to get high with "friends".
I lost friends in car accidents due to intoxicated drivers. Friends of mine had relatives heavily injured (and impaired for life) on that same accidents.
I know I already mentioned it, but I will mention again: Manaus is (or were, I don't live there anymore) one major cocaine entry point in Brazil. Cocaine is very cheap and easily available there, to the point in that it was possible to see cocaine being served together with scotch and wine on some college parties.
On the aftermath, the drug users that were rich could walk away from the mess as they could afford the medical care needed to survive healthy the experience (but some few of them must live with some health problems for the rest of their lives).
The users that could not afford the medical care, well... They just keep going on the best they can.
Of course the major part of these guys managed to walk way almost intact. But a good, significantly part of them did not - counting friends, acquaintances and their relatives, I will guess that 16 to 18 people died or got heavily impaired somewhat due to, direct or indirect, drugs abuse on an universe of... hummm... 120 or 130 people I can remember somehow (Orkut and Facebook to the rescue!).
Talking with relatives that always lived here in São Paulo, things are not that harsh. People dies and get health problems everywhere and all the time, but the incidence on my social circle are one order of magnitude higher than on theirs.
Cocaine and some other drugs are somewhat more expensive here in São Paulo (the popular drug here appears to be marijuana).
I would be naive to conclude that drugs are the only reason for that, but I would be even more naive by ruling them out from the equation.
If irresponsible were a felony, we'd all be in jail.
On a second thought, you are right. I would got a life sentence for some things I did when younger... :-)
It may not be polite, but perhaps the issue is that I was brought up in the US, and you were brought up in a 3rd world country
Reality is rarely polite. And you're right. Brazil is experiencing a severe ethical crisis for, let's say, 30 years at least.
It depends on the sickness. "dumb" doesn't harm society that much.[..]
Well, I think that dumbness is one of the worst "social sickness" possible. The perpetual reelection of a very nasty cast of corrupt politicians in some states in Brazil is a prove of that. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
We must take some care about some subjects, as this "social sickness" matter can be badly misused. Homosexuality was never a social danger - sociopathy, on the other hand, is.
Dishonesty can be hugely disruptive, selfishness too.
Imagine living on a society where one can commonly hit a pedestrian with his car/motocycle and leave without hassle, as very few people are willing to "waste his time" going to the police to testify the event - the victim end up speaking alone
Or else a society in which you must check and recheck every transaction on every place, as people is used to steal small amounts of your change, charge more than the regular price of the product or even deliver a bit less of the product you're buying.
Marijuana *can* cause psychological dependence, but granted - tobacco too.
And you are right - it's nearly impossible to abuse marijuana, unless the poor bastard is masochist, suicidal or have some serious psychological issues (mainly anxiety).
What does not means that constant use of marijuana is safe, but granted, tobacco and alcohol neither.
As I said in some other posting, I think that we can see marijuana being legalized in a few years.
There is a saying "trust but verify"
This does not had worked well on my life. I'm getting better results with "Verify, and then trust".
Our arguments reflects our beliefs, and I think we're reaching some core personal concepts too much bounded to personal experiences to be disputed.
But at least, they can be acknowledged and understood.
You are (from my perspective) arguing that *most* people are not intelligent and not decent. I disagree with your assessment of the human condition.
An american philosopher (I forgot who) once said something like: "What's percentage of sick people a society can sustain without getting sick itself?"
We don't need that most people be dumb and indecent. It's enough than a sufficient number of them exists to pervert the society. I believe that this "sufficient number" is smaller than you think.
Where I wrote "secondary countries and regions", please read "laggards, archaic countries and regions" - I'm really lost here, I could not think on a good English translation for "países arcaicos e anacrônicos".
Damn. I should get some sleep, I wrote some really bad sentences above. :-(
Where I wrote "The nowadays word", please read "The nowadays World".
Where I wrote "but nothing that could put Brazil aside Japan", please read "but nothing that could get Brazil out the side of Japan".
Where I wrote "You were still killing your natives", please read "You were still legally killing your natives".
And I asserting what the link says, and you quoted: "Consequently the recreational abuse of opium,"
We can argue in order to reach a consensus about what is "use", and what is "abuse".
Let's begin with mine:
Use : making (recreational, in our case) use of something in a way that does not perverts its original (recreational, in our case) intent.
Example of alcohol use: occasionally getting drunk with friends getting a good chat or some other fun time.
Abuse: perverting the original intent of the drug.
Example: getting drunk everyday, and suffering from this, as you cannot stop yourself from doing that.
Marijuana, Cocaine, Opium, Alcoho, whatever - the intended purpose of all them is to get some pleasure.
As soon as the subject gets addicted, and starts to use the drugs just because he can not stop, getting so or more hurts as he gets pleasure (if any pleasure is got at all - some drugs stops working, while still being necessary to the metabolism), I define it as an abuse.
I deeply disagrees.
The nowadays word is a big, messy culture with a lot of things in common. Putting aside some minor, secondary countries and regions - like Africa, North Korea, Afganstan, etc, we all share a lot of the modern thinking and desires.
There're cultural nuances, but nothing that could put Brazil aside Japan (I'm carefully avoiding using USA on this matter, as I already found some north-americans that really thinks USA is a civilization apart from the rest of the world).
The USA on the XIX Century were a rural country, still fighting for territorial occupation. You were still killing your natives for land at that time. USA started their way to be a World biggest Military and Industrial Power only during 2nd World War.
XXI Century Brazil is closer to the XXI Century USA than the XXI Century USA is close to the XIX Century USA.
And, by the way, we are all humans. Suffering on poor China is the same suffering on the poor Africa, and the pollution on the rich China is the same pollution on the Mexico. Cultural nuances shapes diffident solutions for the same problems.
I had already guessed Brazil to be your country of origin or residence, though you haven't explicitly said so, but your recent references to locations in Brazil and Portuguese confirm it.
As a side note, I lived 25 years on Manaus, Amazon. Drugs were cheaper there, as Manaus is one of the entry point from drugs made by drugs cartels on Colombia et all.
Man, I saw a lot of bad things happening to people that uses drugs. Not all directly caused by drugs, granted, but... It's hard do not associate one thing with the other.
The thing I find interesting is that the pro-prohibitionists I speak to generally imply that if something was legal, "everyone" would do it, but when questioned, they say they would not, thus proving their own argument wrong.
I totally agree. However, the same applies with the other side. A lot of drugs users from my social circles does not understand how I can accept their choices without condoning it. The faces of the guys that offered me marijuana last time was simply remarkable. I had to take a walk around the show, as their uncomfortable was undisguisable.
So the arguments of "it would be a massive problem because *everyone* would do it" are neecssarily wrong. A few more people may try it, but if it's legal, then they can hold jobs and such (yes, in the US, people are fired for getting high outside business hours).
I agree.
What I disagree with you is that "just a few people wound try it". I think that a lot of irresponsible people would be going to abuse drugs, with all the splash damage inherent to it. I also think that this same irresponsible people are also lazy enough to seek drugs if it would be too hard or too costly, preferring being irresponsible with some other less damaging (and legal) drugs.
Using your "drunk driving" rationale, if being irresponsible were a felony, drugs prohibition would be useless as the core problem would be already dealt with.
But while irresponsibility is legal, I can't see how to legalize all drugs as you defends.
"It's arbitrary" is an indication that it's inherently inadequately justified, until proven otherwise. The reasons marijuana is illegal now all apply *more* to alcohol than marijuana, yet alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. That's stupid and illogical ("arbitrary" is a pejorative which implies "illogical" and "unjustified" in common use).
I think that I finally understand what you means for "arbitrary", but I beg your pardon as I disagree of the inherent evilness of it.
You appears to have profound dislike about what can be called "synthetic reasoning", and I'm guessing that you blindly (I know the use of this word is commonly pejorative in English, but I do not want to be pejorative - I just could not found a better word) thrust on rational reasoning.
The problem is that rational reasoning is not inherently better than the synthetic ones. Given an wrong or bad axiom, all the cards castle falls apart when applied to reality. Sometimes you just can't reach a valid axiom in order to make your rational reasoning works (being pedantic, your rationale can be always correct, but not always valid).
So, I cannot accept your statement of "it's illogical or unjustified, so it's bad". Logical and justified things can be bad also.
I can accept, however, that you find all the thing plain stupid (I can even agree sometimes) - but by doing that, you would be being arbitrary too - and I cannot accept that you can, on good faith, do a thing yourself that you not condone on others (exception made on some sexual practices I love being done by my women, but wouldn't do it myself - since I presuming you're male, this does not applies either!). :-D
This is the main reason I though badly about you for while (things changed on the drunk driving discussion, when I realized I was wrong about it - so the "problem" should be something else).
Well...
I see a blocking problem on our "arbitrary" discussion, as I'm getting more and more confused on its use on your argument. Sometimes, we need to be picky in order to pursue a misunderstanding^w understanding about what the f*ck we are arguing about! =D
So, please, let's forget a while our argument about marijuana, and shift it to an argument about the argument itself (God, we are going to meta-argumenting - how slashdotting can this be?)
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary :
I don't think definition number 1 can be, correctly, applied to your argument as most drugs ban are condoned by the majority of the population - not to mention that the guys that ruled the ban were elected as the people representatives. You can argue that people are being misguided to elect representatives that do not represent our real interests (and you'll probably be right), but this is another problem.
Definition number 2 was applicable in the past, but not anymore. Explicit legislation exists today to ban some drugs (again, you can argue about the correctness of the legislation, but again, it's anther problem).
Definition number 3 does not applies neither, as if it applies we simply could not be having this conversation. As a side note, Brazilian drugs law in the 1970`s were arbitrary by this definition, as any public pro-drugs statement would be classified as "drugs apology", a federal felony!
Maybe the definition number 4 would apply - but again, the majority of people either support or does not care about the issue, so I don't think the "unsupported" applies. Since there're ongoing efforts on studying the matter, the "unreasonable" does not applies neither. So it would be a weak argumentation.
Exampling, the Prohibition of alcohol can be tagged as arbitrary, because the people didn't support it at all - definitions 1, 2 and 3 full applies here (and 4 partially, as it was unsupported by most part of the people).
5 and 6 are completely off our topic, I hope we do not have to argue about it. :-)
(to be continued).
But corporations are people too ! ;-)
I understood the joke, but I'l pretend I didn't in order to say:
I will believe it when I see a corporation going to jail or in the death row. :-)
At last, I found something about drugs (ab)use in the 19th Century on the U.S.
http://www.netowne.com/historical/tennessee/drugs.htm
It appears that (presuming the reliability of the text), at least on Tennessee, there were drugs problems (in a similar fashion we have nowadays) on that times. What appears to corroborate my statement: US already had a drug problem in the 1800's - it's not weird that a third world guy appears to know (and research) more about US history than some Americans? =P
On the other hand, your ideals of drug legalizing are equally old, as this very same document states:
Had you made some research instead of all that ranting and raving, you could made a very impressive argument - probably one that would shut me up as I don't know american's history well enough to do a good refutal.
Then I assert you do not know the definition of "arbitrary." Or, I'd say you know the word as the dictionary defines it, but, for English, that doesn't work
Ok, another language barrier bites me in the butt.
I will assume "Arbitrary" as a decision made based on synthetic reasoning ("the day starts at sunrise" versus "the day starts at sundown", by example).
However, by accepting your definition of "Arbitrary", I simply can't see any evilness inherent to it.
So, yes. I can now accept that marijuana ban is arbitrary. I can accept that alcohol ban was arbitrary. But I do not accept the "It's arbitrary" argument a valid one on this discussion.
Things can be good or bad, being arbitrary or not. This simply does not matter.
Just for the sake of completeness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_English_Opium-Eater
Ok, still not american. But I'm getting closer. :-)