Monday, August 22, 2011
Rising Sun
I watched the sun rise at thirty-four thousand feet the other morning. I was dumbfounded to think that people can take pride in their country. The sun rises over all of us. Perhaps this is non sequitur though. It also left me wondering how I ever felt significant in my life.
A Relative Perpective
Monday, May 9, 2011
Love, are you there?
Like gravity, space, and time, love is relative to the user, owner, or receiver. Like the meaning of life, love is defined by the person whom wields it.
So, when a receiver feels different that then giver on what love fundamentally is, the relationship can not have any motion and will almost always die.
But what if one or the other could change?
Let us assume there are the surface personalities, which define who we are in our day-to-day lives, and the sub-surface personalities, which define who we are morally and ethically.
It is wrong to ask a person to change either of these. It is wrong to ask someone to change the surface personality because those traits are generally extraneous to the actual dynamic to the relationship. It is also wrong to ask them to change the sub-surface personality because it is what they are at their most fundamental root. And to ask someone to change that is to take away who they are, and who we are is all we truly have in this world.
The practical implication of this is that one can only exist indefinitely with someone who is an exact replica of the first person both on the surface and underneath. This idea is as corrupt as having someone change who they are at their most fundamental level.
So maybe, just maybe, if one is really, really lucky, one can find a complement to ones’ self and have this indefinite co-existence that I speak of so wistfully. A Relative Perspective
So, when a receiver feels different that then giver on what love fundamentally is, the relationship can not have any motion and will almost always die.
But what if one or the other could change?
Let us assume there are the surface personalities, which define who we are in our day-to-day lives, and the sub-surface personalities, which define who we are morally and ethically.
It is wrong to ask a person to change either of these. It is wrong to ask someone to change the surface personality because those traits are generally extraneous to the actual dynamic to the relationship. It is also wrong to ask them to change the sub-surface personality because it is what they are at their most fundamental root. And to ask someone to change that is to take away who they are, and who we are is all we truly have in this world.
The practical implication of this is that one can only exist indefinitely with someone who is an exact replica of the first person both on the surface and underneath. This idea is as corrupt as having someone change who they are at their most fundamental level.
So maybe, just maybe, if one is really, really lucky, one can find a complement to ones’ self and have this indefinite co-existence that I speak of so wistfully. A Relative Perspective
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Drug Compilation
"No evidence exists that anyone has ever died of a marijuana overdose [2, p. 53 - 54]. Tests performed on mice have shown that the ratio of cannabinoids (the chemicals in marijuana that make you stoned) necessary for overdose to the amount necessary for intoxication is 40,000:1 [1]. For comparison's sake, that ratio for alcohol is generally between 4:1 and 10:1 [2, p. 227-228]. Alcohol overdoses kill about 5,000 yearly [3] but marijuana overdoses kill no one as far as anyone can tell."
There were four hundred thirty-five thousand tobacco related deaths last years.
There were eighty-five thousand alcohol related deaths.
There were seventeen thousand other illicit drug use [not including Cannabis] deaths.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law, or government more or less is designed to protect us from the nature of others and to protect others from ourselves. However in no text do we find a reference or implication to a protection from ourselves. Thus, all drugs should be legal. This is under the assumption that drugs only hurt the user and not the people around them.
Drugs do not hurt those around them. Only the emotionally dependent are, by implication, hurt by the drug user or the drug. If it truly hurts the person so much, then he or she should not associate with the user. There is nothing more to it than that.
Arguably they should not be hurt by the use. It is the users independent choice that is theirs to make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean that drugs are a benefit to society or a good thing? No, this is not the implication. The idea of dependency of the user on a drug is equal to that of the emotional dependency of the person on the user. It is worse because it does not only serve as an emotional dependency but a physical one as well. This shows both physical and mental weakness in the drug user and a general inability to cope with day-to-day activities in most cases.
[1] Mikuriya, T.H. "Historical Aspects of Cannabis Sativa in Western Medicine," New Physician, 1969, p. 905.
[2] Grinspoon, Lester. Marihuana Reconsidered. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
[3] Nadelmann, Ethan A. "Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives," Science, Vol 245: 943, 1 September 1989. A Relative Perspective
There were four hundred thirty-five thousand tobacco related deaths last years.
There were eighty-five thousand alcohol related deaths.
There were seventeen thousand other illicit drug use [not including Cannabis] deaths.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law, or government more or less is designed to protect us from the nature of others and to protect others from ourselves. However in no text do we find a reference or implication to a protection from ourselves. Thus, all drugs should be legal. This is under the assumption that drugs only hurt the user and not the people around them.
Drugs do not hurt those around them. Only the emotionally dependent are, by implication, hurt by the drug user or the drug. If it truly hurts the person so much, then he or she should not associate with the user. There is nothing more to it than that.
Arguably they should not be hurt by the use. It is the users independent choice that is theirs to make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean that drugs are a benefit to society or a good thing? No, this is not the implication. The idea of dependency of the user on a drug is equal to that of the emotional dependency of the person on the user. It is worse because it does not only serve as an emotional dependency but a physical one as well. This shows both physical and mental weakness in the drug user and a general inability to cope with day-to-day activities in most cases.
[1] Mikuriya, T.H. "Historical Aspects of Cannabis Sativa in Western Medicine," New Physician, 1969, p. 905.
[2] Grinspoon, Lester. Marihuana Reconsidered. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
[3] Nadelmann, Ethan A. "Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives," Science, Vol 245: 943, 1 September 1989. A Relative Perspective
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)