Friday, April 16, 2010

Wikipedia and understanding the WAR ON SOME DRUGS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_on_concepts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Against_Prohibition


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Drug_Control_Programme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_On_Some_Drugs

Early drug laws

Perhaps the earliest recorded example is the prohibition of the use of alcohol under Islamic law (Sharia), which is usually attributed to passages in the Qur'an dating from the 7th century. Like other Sharia laws, alcohol prohibition is enforced by Mutaween, the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Some Muslim scholars[who?] assert that this prohibition actually addresses only the abuse of alcohol, but they do not have sufficient numbers or authority to override the familiar total prohibition. Although Islamic law is often interpreted as prohibiting all intoxicants (not only alcohol), the ancient practice of hashish smoking has continued throughout the history of Islam, against varying degrees of resistance. A major campaign against hashish-eating Sufis was conducted in Egypt in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields of cannabis.

Though the prohibition of illegal drugs was established under Islamic law, particularly against the use of hashish as a recreational drug, classical jurists of medieval Islamic jurisprudencemedicinal and therapeutic purposes, and agreed that its "medical use, even if it leads to mental derangement, remains exempt" from punishment. In the 14th century, the Islamic scholar Az-Zarkashi spoke of "the permissibility of its use for medical purposes if it is established that it is beneficial."[1] According to Mary Lynn Mathre, "In this legal distinction between the intoxicant and the medical uses of cannabis, medieval Muslim theologians were far ahead of present-day American law."[1] accepted the use of hashish for

Religious intolerance was a motivation for drug prohibition in Christian Europe. In a move interpreted as support for the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis. The persecution of heretics in the form of witch hunts also gathered momentum around this time, and frequently targeted users of medicinal and hallucinogenic herbs. The Inquisition proceeded apace in Meso-America and South America, where peyote (péyotl), ololiúqui, toloáche, teonanácatl and other sacred plants of the Mexicandevil. culture were prohibited as works of the

In Northern Europe, the Protestants were also responsible for passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance, according to Stephen Harrod Buhner. Buhner argues that the 1516 Reinheitsgebot, which stipulates that beer may only contain water, barley and hops was a "reflection of Protestant irritation about 'drugs' and the Catholic Church". Unlike the typically nuts blends widely used at the time (e.g. gruit), hops cause sedation and reduce libido. The exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268.

A serious gap in Buhner's approach, though, is that Protestant Reformation was—largely involuntarily—kickstarted by Martin Luther in 1517, that is the year after the ReinheitsgebotCatholic Church, merely focusing on Indulgences turned into a full-scale revolt against Papal power from 1521 on (after the Diet of Worms) because he was unexpectedly backed by German princes such as Frederick III, Elector of Saxony who strongly objected to the Catholic Church meddling in their affairs and finances. Those princes had been seeking ways to undermine Papal Rome's influence and fundraising on their territories for quite some time when the Reformation actually started. Local monopolies on gruit being a cash cow for many a monastic community, they were an obvious target to undermine their financial power. Which means edicts to impose hops instead of gruit in beer were probably politically motivated, and also explains why many of those edicts did indeed come long before the Reformation even started. edict (for one year only, and in a part of Germany that never switched to Protestantism), and two centuries and a half after hops became compulsory in France. Besides the religious motivation there was also a political one: Martin Luther's criticism of the

Coffee almost followed the same fate as cannabis as its use spread from Ethiopia through the Middle East to Europe. Coffee, regarded as a Muslim drink, was prohibited to Orthodox Christians in its native Ethiopia until as late as 1889; it is now considered a national drink of Ethiopia for people of all faiths. In the Ottoman Empire, Murad IV attempted to prohibit coffee drinking to Muslims as haraam, arguing that it was an intoxicant, but this ruling was soon overturned after his death.[2] The introduction of coffee in Europe from Muslim TurkeyPope Clement VIII sanctioned its use in 1600, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it." Its early association in Europe with rebellious political activities led to its banning in England, among other places.[3] prompted calls for it to be banned as the devil's work, though

In late Qing Imperial China, opium imported by the British East India Company was vastly consumed by all social classes in Southern China. Between 1821 and 1837 imports of the drug increased fivefold. The Chinese government attempted to end this trade, on public healthFirst Opium War). China was defeated and the war ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which protected foreign opium traders from Chinese law. A related American treaty promised to end the smuggling of opium by Americans. It took until the next Opium War for the trade to be legalized. The resulting trade purportedly set into motion a chain of events that would lead to the massive Taiping Rebellion. grounds. The effort was initially successful with the destruction of all British opium stock in May 1839. However, to protect this trade, the British declared war on China ( --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_On_Some_Drugs

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Zero degrees of separation: The social Network, what is to be done.

Zero degrees of separation: The social Network, what is to be done.

All over the internet new connections and being made at an ever increasing daily rate, group and swarm intelligence is swarming, grouping and the world is awakening or birthing itself into a new level of coherence. A new game emerges each day when we wake from our nightsleep, with new rules and players, and we navigate the field, searching for meaningful games to play and share with others.

We are blown to atoms, bits and genes in the information age, like the Hadron super-collider, identity has been blown into ambiguity, everybody and everything fission fusion collusion. Here Comes Everybody’ wrote Joyce, and now we are all thrust into the palace halls of the 1000 narrators searching for the author, looking for the plot to pick up the thread, to check that one is living and writing, not reading and dead, some said that these voices are schizophrenia and/or hallucination, and helped to brainwash the Human nations with psychiatric double speak keeping mum about MK Ultra.

Everybody will feel ripped to the tits now the World Wide Web is awake and turning over the ages of mankind at ever greater speeds, bootstrapping itself into higher dimensions, doing more with less, hyper-intelligent computing.

I feel we need a new set of standards, ark, listen to me, I never thought I would say this but there we have it. Steve.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Digital Economy Bill begins passage through Commons (LABYRINTH)

Digital Economy Bill begins passage through Commons

On 6 April 2010, MPs began deliberations at second reading on the Digital Economy Bill, which seeks to tackle online piracy and illegal file-sharing by enforcing internet bans for persistent offenders.

It also provides for the digital switchover of radio by 2015 and modernisation of mobile and wireless broadband connections.

A clause allowing ministers wide-ranging powers to amend copyright law to respond to future technological changes was removed as the bill underwent scrutiny in the House of Lords.

Peers voted to replace it with new arrangements allowing websites containing "substantial" amounts of copyright material to be blocked.

This has proved controversial with internet companies, consumer rights campaigners and academics who fear it could "threaten freedom of speech and the open internet".

MPs expressed concern that there was not enough time left to scrutinise the bill fully before Parliament is dissolved for the general election.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Seventh UK Drug Adviser Quits in Drugs Row

Seventh Drug Adviser Quits in Drugs Row

April 3, 2010 by henryhunter · 2 Comments
Yet another member of the British Governments drug advisory board have quit because media and political pressure put on the control, or lack thereof, of drugs in the UK.
The exodus began months ago when the head of the committee, Professor David Nutt was publicly villainized by the Government and media for claiming that marijuana was illegal for political and not scientific reasons and that you have more chance of dying riding a horse than you do taking ecstasy.  He was followed by four of his colleagues and then in the last week two more has jumped ship.
Mephedrone
The reason for the two new departures is the imminent ban of a drug called mephedrone, and while the Government and media would have the public believe that dozens of people have died because they took the drug, the actual figure of people who have actually been proven to have died from taking the drug is rather low and less exaggerated…  It’s one.  One person.  Not 25.
The drug will apparently be banned by the end of April, and it is certainly curious that the ban comes not from the drug advisers, but from politicians.  What can be deduced from this, I guess, would be that either Gordon Brown or his friends regularly take drugs and are in the best position to decide which are safe for us, or there is absolutely no scientific basis for the banning of illegal drugs in the UK.  If the advisers would rather quit their job than go along with the Governments decisions, it says a lot for the laws, and the supposed science behind it.
The Liberal Democrat Party home affairs spokesperson Chris Huhne announced that the only way to have science fact introduced, finally, into the drug argument would be to make the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) completely separate from Government.
It may seem like a good idea to some people, the banning of mephedrone and the continual banning of other drugs, but they would be wrong.  A substance of any sort cannot be banned without scientific evidence to support it.  You need only look at the drugs that are not only legal but advertised as everyday consumer products…   You had a bad day at work?  Don’t worry, you can stop by the pub on the way home and drink yourself stupid.  Finding it hard to get motivated in the morning?  Have a coffee that will get you going, and don’t stress, nothing goes with coffee like a nice chemical filled cigarette.  Enjoy these drugs, these drugs, along with the chemical ones that apparently cure all sorts of ailments physical or mental are fine, just don’t take the ones that the Government say are illegal.  Because they are fun.  And your Government don’t want you having fun, when you could be working, or reproducing.
It reminds me of the last time I took magic mushrooms, which are now as illegal as heroin in the UK, me and my cousin watched Fortress starring Christopher Lambert, then went into a field near his house, and then I woke up covered in highlighter pen which looked really good under his UV light.  The story has no point, except that I had a great time.  And that is the point.  I can legally buy a drug that makes a lot of people violent and angry and incapable of speech…  But I can’t buy or consume drugs that make me realize that Fortress starring Christopher Lambert is a great film.
The fact that so many have quit, two of them being the head of the committee, suggests to me that the drug laws in this country are not being made by people who know what they are talking about…  That is never going to work, and their knee-jerk reaction to drugs that they seem to be just hearing about is turning millions of children into criminals overnight because the trickledown effect is like a poisoned river.  The Government makes something up, the papers print it, and the parents absorb selective parts of it and then demand the drug be banned.  Whereas people should be given the chance to educate children correctly on drugs, instead of constant fear mongering.  People have always taken drugs, illegal or otherwise, and just because the papers make you believe that drug use is a brand new thing that directly involves your child, doesn’t mean you have to accept it…  Read what the people who actually know what they are talking about…  Well, if the Government would stop firing them or making them quit then you could maybe have a chance at scientific information.
http://worldnewsvine.com/2010/04/seventh-drug-adviser-quits-in-drugs-row/comment-page-1/