One less common principle I find myself abiding by, is the idea that if a law or policy is not in the best interest of the people it governs, I make no point of following it, as an example I will focus today on enforcement of drug policies.
My non participation in abiding by these laws is not meant to get attention towards the changing of the policies, as would the case with civil disobedience on other topics. It is an observation I have made of my own actions, and is not done to insight the actions of authorities or activists, and, though I should be, I generally, am not active in any means of changing policies. This inactivity is something I plan to change, as I better my understanding of the issues. Really I ought to be doing these things already, as a disillusioned citizen.
That said, I will explain why the initial statement is more or less the case. Because I think the government is supposed to get the right to rule from the people and act in the interest of the greater good, if I believe a law or policy does not achieve this, I do not believe myself or others to have given consent.
In the war on drugs, the government spends massive amounts of public money to discover, prosecute and incarcerate people who obtain or use illegal drugs. Whether you condemn the use of drugs or not, it should be clear what is contained in any and all of the DEA's policies and schedules. Like many of our favorite legal documents would be unpleasant to read in a casual sense, and I believe this to be no accident.
If any person commits a violation of this subparagraph or of section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title after two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense have become final, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without release and fined in accordance with the preceding sentence. Any sentence under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 10 years in addition to such term of imprisonment
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/841.htm#a
I think the government has found some sort of reward in convincing the people to be scared of these substances. The drug education programs most elementary school students are subjected to are in my opinion a huge waste of money, and a detriment to the educational institutions. I also think the exaggerations of the effects and nature of the substances is irresponsible and damages their accountability. I remember them saying, more or less, that "if you try marijuana you will want to do cocaine and then heroine, and then you will turn into a horrible monster trying to sell drugs to kids and stealing from your friends and family.." then uses some sort of emotionally packed image as a visual. Now, I may have sensationalized a bit, but actually that was the impression I got from their presentations when I saw them. Also some of the info they provided served more as a how-to than anything, like the substance abuse possibilities of redi-whip type containers, they said that because of the gas used to propel the contents (at the time I believe it was Nitrous oxide or something) a person could get a high feeling, as if floating.
I believe the war on marijuana in particular to have been highly dependent on another shining part of our society, fear mongering and racism. A friend of mine was nice enough to mention to me a quote they heard from a man called the "father of the drug war." Harry J. Anslinger outlined his understanding before a group of people, including some from what was called the Ways and Means Committee, he answered a series of questions which I thought were valuable in characterizing the understanding of marijuana when efforts against it first began. There are parts I believe to be distinctly false, and some which I think are useful, and should be re-evaluatd and hopefully accepted.
MR. MCCORMACK: Is it used by the criminal class?
MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, it is. It is dangerous to the mind and body, and particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of the inhibitions.
I have here statements by the foremost expert in the world talking on this subject, and by Dr. Cutter a noted and distinguished medical man in this country.
(The statements referred to are as follows:)
(From the report by Dr. J. Bouquet, Tunis, to the League of Nations)
Does Indian hemp (Cannabis Sativa) in its various forms give rise to drug addiction?
The use of cannabis, whether smoked or ingested in its various form, undoubtedly gives rise to a form of addiction, which has serious social consequences (abandonment of work, propensity to theft and crime, disappearance of reproductive power).
-From the Washington Post, Nov. 23, 1936-
I do not believe marijuana is addictive, short of peoples interest in its effects. The effects of marijuana I do not think encourage violence, in fact aside from the effects of greed in the illegal sales of it, I see little evidence that aside from the monetary aspect of the drug it encourages any ill will between people.
Anslinger says something I believe to be true though,
MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.
MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm
Based on my understanding (and whatever level of objectivity I have) I do not think the punishments fit the crimes, especially in the case of marijuana. I can understand holding responsible people who sell chemicals which result in the death of the user, but aside from protecting the physical health of the people using the substances, I see few common good type purposes (and would like to shine a little attention on the substances allowed which are likely much more deadly but are too lucrative for the government to get rid of).
One aspect of my feelings on our drug policy is its effect on juveniles. Firstly I would like to clarify, that I do not think incarceration of young persons improves their behavior or is otherwise in their best interest. That said, it saddens me that drug related offenses are grouped in with violent crime, as I think many people who do drugs do not interfere with the wellbeing of others, or pose a threat to society. I will use marijuana throughout this, because it is the fairest example I know... other drugs have greater effect on the person's free will (through levels of awareness and addictive properties). What I see is a large population of people being imprisoned or otherwise prosecuted because of their involvement with drugs. I've been reading from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and found some key pieces interesting (I reference the site first so others can look at it, but also to clarify why my sources are from given years, or to allow congruent research) this is the address http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#cpus.
What I see is that about 15% of the juveniles in the system had their worst offense drug related,
and that in 1994 many, the average duration of punishment for these crimes was longer than that of violent crimes; 21 months for drug offenders versus 17months for violent offenders. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/correct.htm#Juveniles
This doesn't jive. I really despise this system, and it scares me to think of what my community would be like if all the people who did drugs were prosecuted. I do not think young people should have criminal records for their lifetime for possession of marijuana (young people for me being not only those under 18, but also up to say 25 when I believe the structure of the brain has stopped its fundamental development, that like other parts I am especially receptive to arguments for/against..) Some of the smartest most compassionate people I have met have also tried or use regularly illegal drugs. I do not believe at this time, that if I were asked to provide information leading to their prosecution that I would.
My non-cooperation is a direct result of the my opinions of the law itself. I look at the laws restricting alcohol, and its role in criminal acts, as a control, and see a serious discrepancy.
In convicted adult offenders, in 1996, nearly 2 million of 5.3 convicted offenders were thought to have been drinking at the time of the offense, that is about 36%.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ac.pdf Now, as a pseudo-educated individual I have to recognize that there is good reason for people not to admit to use of other substances, and that alcohol is more common, but I think that only changes a small portion of the data.
why do I believe the laws are protecting alcohol and cracking down on other substances? It could be any variety of reasons, cultural/social influences, enforceability , but I believe the paramount issue to be economic. It is harder to profit from marijuana, and we don't manufacture most of the illegal substances brought into the country. (If we could make cocaine in the U.S as easily as we can make alcohol, I wonder if this would be different. Alternately, if marijuana didn't grow so well naturally and is therefore be impossible to control the market on, I wonder if policies would change here.)
Now to answer the question that has likely surfaced in reading my thoughts on drugs.
Have I tried marijuana? no
Do I plan to? no, and I'll tell you why. My goal is to be a surgeon, to be directly responsible for the wellbeing of a patient, and through a combination of my actions, the assistance of other medical professionals and the vast studies of medical sciences to achieve the best result for that individual. I do not want to do anything that puts other people at risk, and on the chance that there is some negative effect in my abilities or situation because of drugs, I choose to avoid them. My specific plan to be a surgeon might not materialize for some reason, but my goal would be the same, to directly assist or positively effect the wellbeing of other individuals.
I've stated my feeling that government is supposed to get the right to rule from the people and act in the interest of the greater good, and because I think our laws regarding marijuana are not, I would not expect myself to assist the government or anybody else in enforcing them. If they were reformed to reflect appropriate caution in the distribution and availability of the drug, I would probably change my position. I wish very much that there could be a comprehensive review of the scientific and statistical information available, as well as social issues regarding marijuana, and that people could be treated fairly, and the drug's criminality be reconsidered by a party which has no vested interest but for the well being of the people here and elsewhere.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Science and Translation (oct 15)
I was reading Ahmadinejad's address to the students at Colombia, and there was something he talked about that I wasn't expecting. Like most speeches there were parts where I agree with the speaker, and many where I cannot agree. What startled me though was his thoughts on science.
Like many things there is much I have to learn about Ahmadinejad, but this alone is cause for investigation. I believe his basic definition of science to be different than mine. In my mind science and religion should not be intertwined. Religion often stifles scientific discovery, and no scientific study can be done properly if meeting the needs of a particular religion. Those two are for me like church and state, they might cover the same ideas, but should not be part of one another's authority.
Here are some examples of what he said about science as he defines it. Now, I've chosen to not get into some of the other interesting topics he discusses (like holocaust, palestine, nuclear war and terrorism, his thoughts on terrorism are something I hadn't actually thought of) until some other time.
"In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination,
In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.
Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.
One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.
Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.
It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions , selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.
My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.
Material desires place humans against the realities of the world.
Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.
Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.
Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
... And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit. For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people.
They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. ...
Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God.
But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.
And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure.
God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice. "
There was more in his speech, and I plan to, as I suggest you do, read it thoroughly.
I cannot judge this man, as I cannot judge anyone, especially seeing that I do not know the culture he comes from, but I know he is idealogical and intelligent. I in many parts of this am concerned by subtle or not so subtle statements pertaining to those issues I chose to forgo earlier.
I watched a bit of news surrounding it, and from what they showed I'd have known nothing of what he said, or understood any part of the event, and that disappoints me. The footage they showed was severely edited down (as to not bore our audience or something similar) and no conclusion about his goal in speaking or our governments relationship to him could have been derived from it.
Like many things there is much I have to learn about Ahmadinejad, but this alone is cause for investigation. I believe his basic definition of science to be different than mine. In my mind science and religion should not be intertwined. Religion often stifles scientific discovery, and no scientific study can be done properly if meeting the needs of a particular religion. Those two are for me like church and state, they might cover the same ideas, but should not be part of one another's authority.
Here are some examples of what he said about science as he defines it. Now, I've chosen to not get into some of the other interesting topics he discusses (like holocaust, palestine, nuclear war and terrorism, his thoughts on terrorism are something I hadn't actually thought of) until some other time.
"In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination,
In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.
Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.
One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.
Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.
It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions , selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.
My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.
Material desires place humans against the realities of the world.
Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.
Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.
Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
... And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit. For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people.
They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. ...
Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God.
But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.
And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure.
God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice. "
There was more in his speech, and I plan to, as I suggest you do, read it thoroughly.
I cannot judge this man, as I cannot judge anyone, especially seeing that I do not know the culture he comes from, but I know he is idealogical and intelligent. I in many parts of this am concerned by subtle or not so subtle statements pertaining to those issues I chose to forgo earlier.
I watched a bit of news surrounding it, and from what they showed I'd have known nothing of what he said, or understood any part of the event, and that disappoints me. The footage they showed was severely edited down (as to not bore our audience or something similar) and no conclusion about his goal in speaking or our governments relationship to him could have been derived from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)