Quote:

---

Personally I could care less about gays or gay rights.

---

Well my post was more about trying to define morality. I threw in the 'Religous Tolerance' link because it totally debunks the notion that homosexuality is 'immoral' as well as explains that arises from catering to homophobes. If the bible writers did not introduce the societal bias (your assertion of immorality) they feared they would not sell as many bibles. Also, it discusses the TWO passages from Levitiucs which the religous people claim as authority to damn homosexuals as immoral. (While ignoring other great old testament laws about stoning people and selling your daughters into slavery...)

You should care about everyones rights. If they can be suspended for a group on the basis of hysterical fear of sexuality from antiquity, they can be suspended for any of us. So you may not agree with gay rights et al but they deserver equal treatment and so do us cannabis users. When you 'fight the therapuetic state' perhaps you should try and frame it more positivbely as in 'fighting for the rights of those harmed by psychiatry'?

Quote:

---

Marriage is an institution of the church not the state.

---

The church does not give tax deductions for dependents. It is 'society' that liscenses marriage so it has been the purview of the state all my life. Traditionally marriage arose in the church but that comes back to that 'fear of ones own sexuality'. The 'woman' of the 'traditional' marriage was little better than chattel. The 'church' kept it that way for CENTURIES, it was the STATE that corrected that. Until the late 70's or early 80's (before the Charter I am guessing) it was still legal for a man to rape his wife. It was not through the 'church' that women gained more equality.

Quote:

---

I'm not interested in education.

---

You would rather keep expounding upon your mistaken views.

Quote:

---

I'm interested in liberty. I know all about slavery because I live it everyday.

---

If you live in Canada and believe you are a slave then perhaps you should seek out one of those 7 psychiatrists. Nobody cracks a whip on my back. The 'absolute' liberty and freedom can be yours, go live in the bush. The values that Jefferson et al had were a product of the times, there are no frontiers left on earth.

Quote:

---

They will find the pathological cause of addiction the same day they find the pathological cause of Christianity.

---

After reading some of the BS articles coming out lately about cannabis and mental illness I have to say you may have a point about the use of 'doctors' as another control mechanism. There definitions of 'psychosis' particularly 'cannabis psychosis seems a lot like witch-doctoring. Seems to me there has not been so much reefer madness stories as lately and that indicates that we are prevailing, prohibition will soon be in the history bin where it belongs.

Quote:

---

So why would I read such rubbish when the base of the research is belief?

I ain't writing no books and I am not looking for socialist enlightenments.

---

Life is learning. Maybe you might glean some useful knowledge in considering others viewpoints. Despite your pendantic rants and simple-minded statements, I read it for the most part. Not for social enlightment but my own personal growth. Running down all your myths and mistaken beliefs can be quite educational.

Quote:

---

I am interested in destroying the therapeutic state.

---

Well, thoroughly discrediting yourself in a public forum is probably not the best strategy. Perhaps you should change tactics.

Quote:

---

You can continue to shill for big-pharma and the therapeutic state all you like.

---

You see, to be a shill, you get paid. And Ssasz got paid large. Besides, the truth is that I can't stand big pharma, and have little respect for most of the psycholgists who, like Ssasz, seem to be on the fringe in thinking.

Quote:

---

Do you suppose Big tobacco like Szasz because of his views on addiction and responsibility?

The belief is that there is something in tobacco that addicts people to it.

That is bullshit.

Szasz has never published a pro-tobacco article that I'm aware of. He has written plenty on what a farce the theory of addiction is.

Same with Scientology. Szasz just happens to make all the pursuasive argument that Scientologist or any one else, like me, can use to strike the root of the therapeutic state.

So I welcome the challange from you on these matters.

---

Again your ignorance even of those you claim to respect astounds me.
He developed those views specifically at Big Tobacco's request, for a profit. It allowed him access to resources to develop stronger dissension amongst the fringe of socio-psychology in the press to undermine the truth behind those who feel that the underlying belief in alien possession is based on disturbing principles held by disturbed people.
Your a freak, worshipping a freak.

Again, tobacco is one of those well documented addictions with clear and solid hard evidence showing pathological addiction. That is pathological, not psychological.
Denial of physical addiction to tobacco is in some ways similar to denial that the Earth is not flat. It just makes you look like an idiot.

Quote:

---

Yet all you can come up with this far down the pike is that I somehow fear homosexuals. Please explain, because I don't know what I have to fear from them. Do they have some kind of supernatural force I should be aware of?

---

It is not just your intolerance of homosexuality.
It is your self admitted feeling that it is ok to murder children who misbehave.
It is your self admitted belief that it is 'OK' for you to inform the LEO with other peoples personal information.
It is your continued belief that you are morally superior to anyone.

You are far more similar to the beliefs of the current U.S. administration.

The truth to you, is something that is malleable depending upon your needs. (as anyone can clearly discern merely by reading how your truth has changed repeatedly even within this one thread....)

The truth to you, is something that other people need to adhere too.

The truth about you, is that you are a depraved, morally deficient, bigot.

Chris ... if addiction is a bullshit term, then explain death from withdrawal:

In general, sedative-hypnotic drugs withdrawal is the most dangerous form of withdrawal. This is because this type of withdrawal can be deadly (Presti, 1999).

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_128.html


Nearly all drugs have withdrawal symptoms - even caffeine. Are you claiming otherwise?

Marc Emery ran a Iboga clinic to mitigate withdrawal from hard drug users - was he wasting his time and money?

Isn't there such a thing as physical addiction? What does Szasz have to say regarding withdrawal symptoms in relation to addiction?

Adiction is like adition it continues for ever until the end.
The end, many times ends in death ,this is sad because will power was lost.Buors has lost his will power to continue just as the the adict does that is just as sad.
Lombar if you had to boys or girls would it be ok for them in your home to be gay in front of your not gay children?
The pride parade and in your face with some ass is not my kind of world.The being gay or not sexually corect was concidered a bannishment out of the family.
As being a hetrosexual and having a gay person hit on me or kiss me is just over the line and it is happening more and more .why?because they think you can just make a choice.
That is it a choice of reproduction and that is our natrual corse in life.Not the dead end road .
Gays can be gay of course its there choice.
I can be straight thats my choice but the minute the gays start teaching that its normal behavior in schools to children that are not theire than we have a problem of course.
It is not normal for man and man to have a baby nor is it for woman and woman to have a baby.So what is the course of life or death in the long run.
Morality is a choice to live or die .
Morality is in the beast this is why we dont eat flesh from humans.

Buors why can you speak for all addics and be so judgemental of them them.

Szasz was a professor emeritus at Syrucuse and has written 28 books and hundreds of papers. I doubt he needs big tobacco's money.

Szasz is the one who exposed big-pharma was behind the research behind all the mental illness drugs that do nothing except stupify the users.

The give drugs to unruly school children to keep children under control. ADHD is nonsense too.

Your a believer in supernatural forces. There is no such thing as addiction. Name the person who proved the theroy holds water. 30 Million Americans have quit smoking in the last 10 years, how addictive can it be?

I have made the case that addiction is a farce, lust for pleasure and some people are gluttons about it. You can continue to believe that inert chemical attack people all you want, and that people have no free will, but you would be wrong. People choose to addict themselves to all kinds of behaviors. And people can choose to unaddiction themselves too. So where you see cigarettes jumping into peoples mouths by some kind of mystical force, I see that the person put it there under their own powers, they are not robots and they are not demonically possessed and they seem to be derviivng pleasure fromn their smoking.

But that's just an observation from a plowman.

My friend, if you were in the Army right now in Iraq you would be very wary of every child, they can kill you just as quick as any adult.

What am I supposed to do when home invaders are pounding down the door, ask for I'd? I have lived through the experiance. I say shoot them through the door. They are not there to do you any good at 3 am. So the only way to deter plunder is to make it more difficult than work. If thieves, teens included, thought they might get shot stealing, then they wouldn't steal. I can't think of any other way to deter them can you? Catching them and letting them go with a good talking just disn't seem to work.

It's a funny thing that you would say I though my morals were superior. I have made the case that there is no such thing as a superior moral.

There is a continuun, (print that in the search engine and see how many times I have used it) on the morality scale.

I stand at a certain place on that scale. And others stand elsewhere. Your morals are yours and mine are mine....there is no superiority about it.

Vices are not crimes, how many times have I said that?

Aduldtery, homosexuality and injection drug use are choices on that continuun that I consider immoral. That is my buisness. If you want to cheat on your boyfriend with another man and you have needles sticking out every vein, I could care less. I won't want to be hanging out with you, I'm sure you'll understand that I'm uncomfortable and don't want to be around any of those behaviors.

See, no hatred, just don't want to be part of it.

For you, that might just be the most fun you ever had and like I said of no concern to me.

Like the old Supertramp song. "It's you for you and me for me, from now on.

You keep insisting for some reason I should be more open minded like you and embrace homosexuals and welcome them into my life.

That is not going to happen. I live my life and I choose to live it homosexual, adulterer and injection needle user-free for as much of it as I can. What is wrong with that?

Explain this depraved business. It is not me who is engaged in the unconventional. By all accounts, I'm a perfectly noraml 47 year old prairie dweller. And I'm comfortable with that.

What truths have changed? I have stuck to my guns for 50 pages now, nothing changed.

Quote:

---

I have made the case that addiction is a farce, lust for pleasure and some people are gluttons about it. You can continue to believe that inert chemical attack people all you want, and that people have no free will, but you would be wrong. People choose to addict themselves to all kinds of behaviors. And people can choose to unaddiction themselves too. So where you see cigarettes jumping into peoples mouths by some kind of mystical force, I see that the person put it there under their own powers, they are not robots and they are not demonically possessed and they seem to be derviivng pleasure fromn their smoking.

---

While i certainly do not intend to demonize 'addicts' of any sort, i do have to agree with Chris here. And this is why:

i am a smoker. i think i had my first 'serious' cigarette around the age of thirteen. As Chris pointed out in an earlier post, you really have to try hard to actually like that first, second or even third and fourth cigarette. Many of my friends never made it beyond those first few cigarettes -- it was either just too disgusting (let's face it, how many first time smokers take a drag and say 'ahhhh, that's what i have been missing!'), or it didn't fit into their 'image' of themselves. For whatever reason, some of these friends would occasionally light one up at a party, usually when they were drinking, but never really developed any deep-seated desire to become smokers. there was never any real lasting pleasure in it for them. Still others, even though they smoked 'regularly' always knew somewhere inside them that it wouldn't be a life-long thing, other forms of feeling pleasure would present themselves and eventually they quit the habit. (My daughters, case in point, never wanted to be adult smokers so they don't smoke cigarettes anymore. I guess it's still perceived by youth in some circles to be somewhat cool/rebellious.).

There have been times in my life when i have smoked about a pack a day. I am currently in a 'lighting up' phase ... between 3 - 7 a day. But here's the thing ... whenever i found myself at a point where i was really needing a cigarette that is when i would NOT light one up, or would just quit for a while (a week, a month, a year or two). If i ever found that smoking was affecting my health in an obvious way, ie, coughing, or shortness of breathe, although i don't ever recall not having enough wind to get me through , i would stop. If i didn't have the money to justify the habit, i would stop. If i was in a relationship with a non-smoker, no big deal, i would taper off. Visiting my parents in their home? down the street and around the corner seemed too far away and by the time i got there i didn't want one anyway (nice work, Dad).

I have a cousin who is a medial researcher and he has explained to me the molecular patterning of a smoker's physiology. if i have a cigarette, even ONE cigarette every day after dinner, then my body is going to remember that and be used to having that hit. and it will send me signals ... unpleasant ones ... telling me that i need that hit. However, those unpleasant feelings will soon go away for good after a few days of not feeding them and i create a new molecular pattern. If i smoke a pack a day, then i am going to have to deal with those unpleasant feelings 20 times a day for several days. Once the initial patterning has been replaced then the unpleasantness certainly cannot be attributed to any physical craving ... the craving is purely psychological. If i decide to start lighting up again, my motives are not to feed a physical urge, but instead to ease a psychological or emotional one. Now when you consider that each and every person on the planet spends their existance in the pursuit of pleasure/avoidance of pain (even if that is only to ensure there is enough water for the day, or enough wood for the night), then it would seem to me that if i decide to pick up that cigarette then i have decided that that cigarette holds more potential pleasure for me at that moment than the situation would otherwise present without the cigarette; the cigarette is simply the vehicle that gets me to pleasure.

My husband took his first cigarette at age seven. he has consistently smoked one to two packs a day for over thirty years. he has never taken a break from it aside from twice when he was compelled to quit, once because of familial pressure and the other because of his own health. however, for him to quit is sooo painful, both physically uncomfortable, and emotionally excruciating because he just doesn't know what to do with himself without them, that he perceives more immediate and constant pleasure from continuing. That his physician has told him he must stop means nothing. He does not see, and certainly does not feel any pleasure in quitting. I have always perceived this as being weak willed. But is it? Could i not also say that his will/desire for pleasure/avoidance of pain is so strong that he cares little for his physical health as long as his emotional self is not subjected to any 'pain' or 'discomfort'; that he will continue to jeopardize his health, essentially killing himself, in order to live in that place of pleasure?

Now i know that i am talking cigarettes here, but could the same not be said for heroine? Or Cocaine? Or any drug for that matter? The first time i boot up, am i 'addicted' to the drug, or to the state of pleasure that the drug puts me into? Why am i tempted to do the drug in the first place? Because i am looking for the experience of pleasure/avoidance of pain, and the drug is the vehicle that i hope will get me there. If i have a bad experience on this drug, ie, little or no pleasure, then i have not achieved my end so will probably not do it again. it holds no value for me. if i love it, if it gets me right into pleasure territory, or complete avoidance of pain, then i am probably going to do it again.

Now, i have never booted heroine. i have had the opportunity. So why not? Simply because i may find that i do indeed like it ... that it may in fact temporarily catapult me completely into that realm of absolute nothingness -- that release from the pain of sheer physical existance. then where would i be? a junkie with the life that accompanies that, and guess what? no pleasure there, at least not for me, so i don't do it.

This reminds me of a question a philosophy teacher once asked of me ... If you could step into a machine that would automatically release you from pain of any and all kind, but would also strip you of the ability to feel anything at all ie. love, hate, joy, fear ... would you do it? No.

Going back to smoking: why did i become a smoker, and my friends not? we all had our first puff at the same time, were subject to the same peer pressures and advertising campaigns, so why did i decide ... 'choose' to be a smoker, when others made a different choice? i think it is important to note that even when i have not smoked for several years at a time, i have always considered myself a smoker who was just not lighting up. why? the only thing that i can come up with here is that that is who i have 'chosen' to be ... that is part of my 'image' my 'persona', and for whatever reason, i derive some sort of pleasure from being a smoker. And i must admit, especially in today's anti-smoker climate. hence, that is just who i have decided to be. i'm with the plowman on this one.

Quote:

---

Lombar if you had to boys or girls would it be ok for them in your home to be gay in front of your not gay children?

---

A hypthetical question I cannot answer. I do not have children so do not know what I would really think and feel. My gut response is that I would not want CHILDREN engaging in any kind of sex in my house, gay, straight or 'altnernative'. If they are teenagers, what makes you think any 'gay' ones would not demonstrate outside of the house? Did your parents have absolute control over you?

Quote:

---

The pride parade and in your face with some ass is not my kind of world.The being gay or not sexually corect was concidered a bannishment out of the family.

---

My family would be far more tolerant. We are not church goers or conservatives...

Centuries of repression which is far less now gives rise to the 'in your face' stuff you are uncomfortable with. That will subside over time, however since they still have to fight for their rights, it is understandable. As DML stated, one starts with 'immoral' and then proceeds to pink triangles.

Quote:

---

As being a hetrosexual and having a gay person hit on me or kiss me is just over the line and it is happening more and more .why?because they think you can just make a choice.

---

Maybe you're just cute ? No gay person who knows him/herself would think they could 'choose' a heterosexual relationship. I do not believe it is a choice.

Quote:

---

That is it a choice of reproduction and that is our natrual corse in life.Not the dead end road .

---

It is usually the harsh bible-thumpers that hold these kind of views. I said that from the strictest point of view, by all the major faiths, sex for anything other than reproduction is 'immoral', outside of marriage, 'forinication'... attitudes from the oh so civilised past. I would rather live in a world that tolerates alternative lifestyles I may not agree with than have a police state to stop what I think is 'immoral'. The only purpose of preaching "homosexuals are immoral" is to have the justification to deny them equal rights.

So if your kid experiments with gay sex, which counsellor would you rather him see? One who is genuinely tolerant of alternative lifestyles or one who will say "you are immoral" in their heart but offer advice through their clenched teeth?

Quote:

---

I can be straight thats my choice but the minute the gays start teaching that its normal behavior in schools to children that are not theire than we have a problem of course.

---

So are you saying that which is 'abnormal' is immoral? This is reaction to years of CB's saying that homosexuals are 'unnatural'. It is obviously normal for a certain percentage of the population to be gay.

I had some thoughts to that end a few years ago when the surrey school board banned a few books like "My Two Dads".. I only really agreed with 'sex education' to teach kids how to avoid pregnancy and disease. They can find out about alternative lifestyles on their own.

Quote:

---

It is not normal for man and man to have a baby nor is it for woman and woman to have a baby.So what is the course of life or death in the long run.

---

Normal? How about physically impossible? What the course of MY life is the only thing I should really be concerned with in this regard.

Quote:

---

Morality is a choice to live or die .

---

Even the dictionary does not give a hard and fast definition of 'morality', it is one big grey area. Far more of a choice than sexual orientation...

Quote:

---

Morality is in the beast this is why we dont eat flesh from humans.

---

?

The 'beast' is the evil in peoples hearts that stop them from experiencing love and compassion for their fellows. It's expression is killing, shunning, hating, rapacious greed, war, and injustice.


The only real reason I chimed in is because of Chris' blanket insult to anyone who posts here with a psuedonym. I will be on the side of tolerance wrt to just about any issue except those that lead to (direct and discernable) harm. My LTEs are not signed 'lombar'...

"At the end of the game, the King and the Pawn go back into the same box." - Old Italian Proverb

As an ex-smoker I can attest to the fact that there is a differenece between 'addiction' and 'dependence'. To deny addiction is one thing but I have seen herion users withdraw cold-turkey and it is not pretty. There is a physical dependence with H, alcohol, etc. Alcohol users who quit cold-turkey may even die. The 'craving' is a conditioned response which is debatable as a 'spiritual' ill. I was 'addicted' to ciggarettes, there is no dependence. It was desire for freedom and better health that made me quit.

Dependence is a phyisical phenomena that is scientifically measurable.

If the science shows in the end that there is no such thing as addiciton then that is what I will believe. The fact that Chris keeps insisting addicition does not exist makes me believe there is such a thing...being an 'addictive' personality I can tell you all about it. Is it genetic? Is it attitude?

How about you had bad habits which are just as hard to break as good habits?


Addiction medicalizes a moral choice.


There is nothing that can break a determined person's free will. That's why the Americans have Muslim bodies on their hands from the torture chambers.

They chose to die rather than submit to the will of another.

Chemicals that can break a persons free will simply do not exist and no one is born pre-determined to be a smoker or a drinker.

All behavior is chosen. All behavior has reason to the person doing the moral acting. And by a moral actor, I mean a person capable of making a choice.

What is hitting bottom? Gluttoning out perhaps?

Pleasure drugs are very tempting for many reasons. Yielding to or resisting the temptation has everything to do with moral character and nothing to do with medicine.

Quote:

---

Addiction medicalizes a moral choice.

---

Perhaps but consider, who gets more sympathy, the 'sick' or the 'depraved'? So addiction may 'medicalize' a moral choice (dont agree) but the general public wants to cage the 'immoral' yet only treat the 'addicted'. So addiction in this regard is a step up. your insistence on moralizing what may indeed be a genetic pre-disposition only strengthens the prohibitionists that insist drug taking is immoral.(and thus it justifies the police state)