Don't be silly Harry. Normal body functions essential to staying alive are not "options".
I'm just saying that by accommodating this bullshit idea of "mental addiction" we feed and enable this myth that the ignorant like TheNutHouse wander around murmuring. People watch TV every night; they don't have to, but it qualifies just as much as this "mental addiction" idea. But take the TV away and there are no withdrawal symptoms; there's only an interruption in routine. So what? Routines get interrupted all the time, nothing wrong with that. Let's not melt down and pretend that watching TV, or Friday night pizza , or whatever it is, constitutes "addiction". It doesn't.
Comparing simple routines with, say, a heroin addict whose supply is interrupted and has genuine withdrawal changes, just cheapens the latter.
Totally and completely agree. I don't hear anyone calling for "TV" to be illegal, despite the fact that millions of people waste millions of precious hours watching mind melting reality TV shows that add absolutely NOTHING of value to the society at large. I would go out and say that 95% of what's on TV is not beneficial to the viewer, and that the 5% that is can easily be found elsewhere - directly - like on the internet.
But people like Katz and Thanatos - I believe - are extremely inconsistent and are willing to say that it's "your choice" if you want to waste away in front of a TV screen while at the same time say "it's not your choice" if you want to smoke pot.
I just want consistency, that's all. Is that way too much to ask for, dammit, lol??
If you don't want recreational drugs to be legal, then push to ban alcohol in addition to pot. Don't pick and choose. Justice isn't a pick and choose affair and only functions properly if the logic we apply to it is consistent, rational, and predictable.
Hi KW
I can think of lots of constructive ways TV can be used to counteract the ill effects of TV,
like promoting positive media outreach, public education, literacy and participation.
I am still trying to find a way that pot can be used constructively that can't ALSO be done safer or more effectively in other ways.
At this point, I believe the political focus, organization and push for reform and research can be used for good.
If all people who want to legalize pot were willing to set up their own health care exchanges to pay for all the research and consequences of brain abnormalities or damage,
maybe the plusses would be greater than the minusses; I think the issue is which people are willing to pay for the costs of the experiment or studies on that, similar to how many people are definitely opposed to paying for the cost of criminalization.
I think the main problem is, like with the ACA, we don't agree who should pay which costs of keeping the system as is or the cost of transition, reform or experimenting with changes.
I would be happy to pay into a system that covers all people who go through spiritual healing, reduce all causes and costs to a minimum, with all participants agreeing to help everyone else in the group to cut all costs and invest in only what is most effective and sustainable.
I would like to know what is the best way to separate out these systems so people can pay for what they believe in, including the costs of consequences, and not impose on people who would rather pay for other systems or standards, even if it costs them more.
How can we separate these out and quit imposing the costs and consequences on others?
That is the challenge I would like to propose to Party leaders and members; to take the enrollment concept used for ACA and adapt it to separate systems and funds by Party
under terms and regulations or deregulations that the members agree to be legally and financially responsible for without imposing any related costs or consequences on others.
