I Amuse Myself

Just as harmful as artists, teachers, engineers, farmers, fisherman and politicians that are child molesters...what's your point?

You may be kidding, but it's worth trying. Currently the only legal altered states of consciousness people are able to experience are through the use of rather toxic drugs such as ethanol and through engagement in the tantric arts. Given the need people have for altered states of consciousness (ASC) legalizing psychedelics would allow for a rich variety of ASC's to be experienced by people who currently experience ASC's from watching online pron.

One can argue that one can experience high quality ASC's through such activities as skydiving, helicopter skiing, diving around the Great Barrier reef, taking a Russian rocket up to the space station, shooting Al Qada militants in Syria or base jumping from some of the very high buildings in Asia. Nice if one has the money for such activities, but most people don't and are often stuck watching pron on the internet. It would probably be a far better thing for most of these people who are currently performing onanistic rituals in front of their computers to ingest one of the substituted phenylethylamines and experience an ASC which might kick them out of the rut they've gotten themselves into.

As far as the cocaine that the Quebec pornographer was bringing back, it's a drug that's a producer of very short lasting ASC's but primarily a means to part people from their money. Great for the dealers but not so good for the obsessive users -- in this case they'd be better off viewing tantric performances on various pron sites.

Yes, the child molesting ones are harmful. That's the reason for making the molestation of children illegal, and not just when priests or ministers do it.

Do you want being a priest or minister who doesn't molest children also made illegal?

Of course what NME666 keeps ignoring is that his brand of belief wants to legalize pedophilia.

I wouldn't hang my hat on that tidbit, Aviator. One study suggested what you posted (and I don't buy it) but its authors' belief in obscene material involving children could somehow curb predators' urges (again, not buying it- see Escience News, November 30th, 2010- damn filter will not let me link the article).

do they watch porno ? I'd say probably!! I am sick of hearing about pastors and priest this and that first of if you know the bible and you understand Christ ...these people lied (witch is possible) to get into the church where a)they knew they would be entrusted with children and privacy b) who in the church is going to accuse or assume there priest is a pervert or pedophile? they know this so they do it , same with hockey coaches like gram james or teachers lawyers doctors ect let's talk about the athiests who who fly to cuba from Canada so they can screw little boys and girls you wanna point fingers? regardless these people were sick long before they were professional. I find it just as discusting that a teacher has a gangbang with her underaged male student's as I do a priest who molest's kids. but for you you probly think one is ok and the other not so much right? exactly I thought so ...time to tune in your moral compass buddy stealing is stealing regardless but you probly only think its steal if you get caught right?

just because you where a funny hat or claim to be Christian does NOT mean you are! It's how you live and trust me these guy's were perverts and pedophiles long before they were men of the cloth they used the church as a perfect cover to fulfill there fantasies. remember evil is everywhere and NO MAN can avoid it.

"do they watch porno ? I'd say probably!!"

An assertion which you cannot prove. And in any case, it's irrelevant. You are confusing written or visual images with actual crimes of person. You claim that the former incite the latter, but you are unable to demonstrate this in any way. So perhaps this is nothing more than you seeking to impose your morality on everyone else. Are you sure that you are not simply seeking to avoid being personally offended and dressing it up in bogus claims of a connection between pornography and sexual assault?

Glad to know you are on the side of endorsing Section 13 and the suppression of freedom of expression. In case you didn't know, free speech means tolerating those things you personally dislike, not just those things which agree with your own morality.

Where to start with the babble from cgh. He earlier says "legalizing drugs would not reduce pornography, but it would reduce both crime and public health risks."

No it wouldn't. That is simply the typical "benefits" that the left comes up with to try to sell their ideas. You see the same sort of thing with IT projects that promise all kinds of "benefits" that can never be quantified or harvested. Don't believe it? Next time you are involved in an IT project, try this.....tell the proponents that they must quantify the benefits they see arising out of their project, when they will be realized and how large they will be. Then tell the proponents that they will be held to their projections and their budgets will be cut by the corresponding amount of the benefits they claim at the time they claim they will arise. The IT projects will evaporate in a flash.

The same concept should be applied to every policy decision where we are told that there will be benefits. If so, when do we ever see them in terms of cost reduction in those areas where they are claimed to arise?

Also in regard to the "freedom of expression", there is already enough case law in that regard that puts certain things into the Criminal category. I am beginning to wonder about cgh.

So please state the cost benefits of the War on Drugs. You opened that can of worms, now you get to eat it.

No it wouldn't. That is simply the typical "benefits" that the left comes up with to try to sell their ideas. You see the same sort of thing with IT projects that promise all kinds of "benefits" that can never be quantified or harvested.

WTF does IT have to do with the WoD?

Legalizing porno has done more harm and corrupted and perverted more men women families young boys and young girls than anything. it has given a stage and a very loud microphone to immorality.

Welcome to SoCon bizzaro-world. Where the Gayz are coming for your children.

Where did I say anything about gay's? you are the "bizzaro" one.

Well because you aren't terribly bright, LAS, I'll try to explain it one more time. But this will be the last. If you have trouble with it, get an adult (who isn't stoned) to help you.

Many IT projects claim they will produce all kinds of benefits. Few are quantifiable and many are nothing more than hunches. And so if the proponents of those projects, in their business plans, document certain benefits and savings, the budgets in those areas where those benefits and savings are supposed to accrue are cut by the amount of those savings. The same goes for drug legalization. If, as the drug pushers claim, legalizing drugs will lower police or health care costs, then those benefits must be crystallized and the budgets of those areas be cut accordingly.

And to cgh....there are many data points around the world that indicate that a war on drugs does work and plenty indicating that legalization does not. The laughable one about taxing pot is a perfect example. Colorado is finding out otherwise. Not that you would know, of course.

so you are saying that porno does not harm or corrupt children or men and women who view it? or make it? I recently saw this news article

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/10/23/did-parents-sell-kids-porn?clusterId=121

Tell me it doesn't hurt kids family mom and dad. you ppl just think it's all ok. and I am against section 13 this is beyond the pale of hate speech or freedom of expression wouldn't you say? you think this is the only case? you think the women in porno love it ? you think women in porno CHOOSE it? they do it voluntarily yes I agree but they don't want to ..they are mentally broken 80% of women in porno were molested either by a family member or someone they knew . And all you care about is your freedom to "express" yourself? you are morally bankrupt.this is not expressing anything. and this happens more often that your pathetic idea of an adult female that is sooo horny that she want's several men and to have it filmed on camera is an absolut affront to the idea behind freedom of expression. It's damaging and ruining and destroying our moral conception of the opposite sex .

"there are many data points around the world that indicate that a war on drugs does work"

Coyly, you mention none of them. The thousands of dead Mexicans killed in drug wars every year would beg to differ. The Taliban funded by opium profits would beg to differ. The fact is that the war on drugs has created possibly the greatest crime wave the world has ever seen. It has created the largest black market the world has ever seen. It costs billions every year in policing and military costs alone.

And the war has affected availability not one iota. All of them are universally available, anywhere, at any time. That, by any military standard of performance, is a spectacular failure.

And against this tidal wave of policy disaster you offer nothing more than "many data points".

Paul, actually it's you who is morally bankrupt. By you're own words you are speculating about the motivations of people you've never met and of whose lives you have no understanding. And of course by wishing to keep the pornography business illegal you simply endanger the general public through the health problems created in an industry which has no standards of any kind. Knowing that prostitution and pornography will always exist, all you do is push more women into being exploited and killed by the Robert Picktons of the world. In short, your prohibitions are a pure form of evil, because you wilfully would inflict pain and suffering on the weakest individuals in society.

Torquemada would be proud.

"you think women in porno CHOOSE it?"

This is the funniest bit yet. Reminds me of the preacher who "visits" the whorehouse in order to save them.

Joey, cgh has already stated a lot of the points that I would have made so I'll deal with the war on (some) drugs (WOsD) and its effect on fundamental freedoms. Because of the WOsD, banks are required to report any "suspicious" cash transactions, there are asset seizure laws which violate fundamental justice as the onus is on the person whose assets are seized to prove they're not obtained through the proceeds of crime. There's the increasing militarization of the police, the primary determination of a person's character being the composition of their urine, restrictions on freedom of speech, being liable to be arrested for possession of "drug paraphenalia" and a host of totalitarian measures which have no place in a supposedly free society.

Most firearms crime in the US is a result of the WOsD and, statists are far more ready to ban possession of firearms rather than go after the root cause of high homicide rates -- the WOsD. Now there's a huge industry which has grown up around the need to keep some drugs illegal and many lawyers, judges and politicians are totally against the legalization of drugs as this would stop the bribes they get from large scale drug dealers to look the other way. The corrupting influence of the WOsD's on society and the degradation of fundamental freedoms that this criminal enterprise causes is far greater than any deleterious effects of currently illegal drugs on individuals.

Recently I had a former cop in my exam room who, given the beating his body took as a result of that work, now has severe chronic arthritic pain. A next door neighbor of his has a medical marijuana license and he tried some and was amazed that there was finally something which worked for his pain. He had, rather late in his life, suddenly begun to question the validity of his involvement in the WOsD. The fact that cannabis, a drug which is far safer than ethanol, is criminalized makes no logical sense. The lessons learned from alcohol prohibition appear to have been completely forgotten. As dangerous as ethanol may be, the consequences of attempting to prohibit its consumption by people are far far worse for society. During prohibition, liquor was freely available and huge criminal enterprises sprung up to satisfy people's desire for intoxication. The criminal organizations that arose during that era, once prohibition ended, just moved on to other things and many of them are still with us in some form.

The WOsD has made all drugs cheaper and more widely available -- hardly a justification for the massive loss of freedoms that such a war on ones own people entails. In 1975, a gram of cocaine went for $150. Now, that same gram of cocaine goes for $75-100. At times during the last 10 years, the price of a gram of cocaine dropped to $50 in Vancouver. It's left as an exercise to the reader to determine how large a price drop, when indexed for inflation, the WOsD's has caused for cocaine prices. In 1975, most cannabis sold was still the leaves of the plant whereas now cannabis on the street is only high quality hydroponically grown buds with a THC content of 20% or more. The price of a gram of such high quality cannabis runs at $5-10 whereas hashish, in 1975, which was of inferior quality to BC skunk weed of today, went for $5-10 a gram. Another "victory" in the WOsD.

Now in the US, just owning chemical glassware is considered a crime and there are countries where making any compound which has psychoactive effects will result in jail time. The problem with this totalitarian approach to psychoactive chemicals is that humans have an innate drive to get high. Human history is closely intertwined with psychoactive plants with opium poppies, psilocybin mushrooms and anticholinergic drugs from datura being European basics whereas in India cannabis was a commonly used drug with with wide application in medicine. S. America has the greatest concentration of psychedelic plants in the world with the inhabitants using DMT containing snuffs, Ayuhuasca which is primarily harmaline based, as well as a host of anticholinergics from a wide variety of Datura species. Siberia had it's use of Amanita muscaria mushrooms which contain muscimole and Africa has Ibogaine and Yohimbine. Now, the only legal psychedelic is mescaline which is used by members of the Native American Church of N. America as a sacrament.

Cultures which recognize the human desire for getting high and achieving transcendence took various psychoactive plants and made their use part of religious ceremonies. This is similar to what we've done in N. America to ritualize the use of alcohol in various celebrations and as a drug that is used after work is done rather than consumed first thing in the morning. Most people who use psychoactive drugs do so in circumstances which are appropriate for the use of such drugs.

What the WOsD has done is to totally criminalize research involving the exploration of pharmacologically altered states of consciousness. There was some very encouraging research in the 1960's which suggested that LSD could be used as a cure for alcoholism but now such research has been totally banned as LSD possession is a crime. Drugs such as MDA have had use in psychotherapy, but again they are banned. The WOsD's has been accompanied by a progressive infantalization of the population where the rulers are assumed to know what is best for people and the general population is considered to be unable to make appropriate decisions. The WOsD's is one of the greatest evils that has afflicted modern civilization.