The "Marginal Utility" of ... that stuff.

[J.L.W]

That begins with "M" but I like my posts to go through on the first attempt so will be careful of that.

Recently, on a call in show a guy phoned Stefan to argue, very unsuccessfully, for the criminalisation of this and other drugs. Stefan stated a few things that I've just started thinking about about the drugs "Marginal Utility". That songs like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamons" was created with it and Stefan enjoyed this music.

This to me is a specious argument, although one that would be difficult to prove either way.

One of the Beatles best I believe was 'Yesterday' by Paul McCartney that came from a dream so we have a referenced source of the song that was not from puffing. Other songs that we might consider to be from that like "Mr Tambourine Man" Dylan stated directly was not from that... But this, from just a rational sense seems unlikely. However, many songs he wrote were written over a few months or more. He was known as a "re- writer" or at least some of his songs were. Rainy Day Woman is quite a good song.

But there are quite a few that he wrote that were very good. That all of them wrote that were very good and better than the ones obviously M inspired. For instance, Dylan:  "You're gonna have to serve somebody", "Dirge" "Knocking on Heavens Door", "Forever Young". Eric Clapton "Tears in Heaven" had stronger inspiration from a non M source. Another of the good songs by the Beatles referenced from Paul McCartneys mother is the term 'Mother Mary' in "Let it Be", another great one, Pauls mother was named Mary.

I have noticed a great deal of time, in my personal life many patterns in the use of M that are not at all positive in that A) Users seem to become more liberal and resent facts over "feelz", it is literally a conversation from right wing thought to liberalism. B) Users have a mysterious lack of anything really going on in their life once you realise what they actually are doing is less useful than they implied it was and the big one, the one shown by someone in particular called David Seaman but shown again and again by this group is C) They have a massively inflated sense of their own output. I don't know if you know David Seaman but he used to come out with loads of things saying he had done loads of work on certain subjects... I could never find this work he had apparently done.

When I talk about this area with people I notice that if they have done the substance they will not criticise it. I think there is an irrational liking for the substance for its users although I do think it has medical uses. I have seen good evidence on this.

Also, Stefan chose a very easy target for this discussion, as I have noticed he sometimes does. If he wanted an actual debate he would choose someone like Peter Hitchens. Who has wrote a lot of very interesting things in favour of criminalisation. Unfortunately I don't have his articles bookmarked since I got rid of Google Chrome but: He shoots down all the standard responses to decriminalisation arguments very succinctly.

 

[J.L.W]

So I just searched Peter Hitchens and the name of that substance. I am just reading through the study here now despite endeavouring to stay out of politics recently:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/05/at-last-a-cogent-and-well-researched-argument-against-marijuana-legalisation.html

This is him taking down stupid arguments for legalisation:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/02/stupid-arguments-for-drug-legalisation-examined-and-refuted.html

Perhaps a bit of a summary would do is that #1 on the arguments he attempts to take down is that it is a 'victimless crime'. He says that studies have pointed to connections between it and schizophrenia which seems to me... very likely.

Another point he makes is that all these Jihadists that go on to attack people generally take it. And although correlation is not causality. Correlation is not NOT causality either. It makes sense that a lot of these people take that substance and believe their spiritual paths are blessed because they are ascribing their feelings of 'enlightenedness' to their religious beliefs rather than where it is coming from which is the drug.

It seems more likely if those feelings were earned rather than not earned i.e. gained through drugs. They might include some emotional backlash from unethical behaviours.

 

 

[barn]

Hi @J.L.W

Could you help me understand why your topic is self-knowledge related?

[J.L.W]

24 minutes ago, barn said:

Hi @J.L.W

Could you help me understand why your topic is self-knowledge related?

Is it not self knowledge to know how a substance effects a person. Whether it makes music better or not for instance?

I wondered where to put it. Probably better in the politics/ economics section but, it can't be moved now.

[barn]

24 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

Is it not self knowledge to know how a substance effects a person. Whether it makes music better or not for instance?

"Marginally",.. I suppose, from a certain angle.

24 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

I wondered where to put it. Probably better in the politics/ economics section but, it can't be moved now.

Agree, my thinking the same... no worries, just the references you were supplying are more political/moralistic/libertarian.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Have a good one,

Barnsley

[barn]

Supplementary:

"The 'Marginal Utility' of ... that stuff."...is now FDA approved.

Not sure why morphine on the other hand (to name one from a DIFFERENT 'family') isn't reclassified already (to a more restricted substance) but hey, the gov. works in not so mysterious ways.