“Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles; these youth became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.”
— America: Land I Love
Socialism, drug abuse and sexual perversion — during the 1960s, the connections between these phenomena were the subject of much discussion in America as university campuses erupted in protests, drug-addled hippies crowded into San Francisco and the so-called Sexual Revolution emerged in all its polymorphous variations. Naive dreams of “peace” and “love” in the groovy Age of Aquarius quickly came crashing down in the squalor, madness and murder of Altamont, the Manson cult, and the explosion that killed three Weather Underground terrorists. By 1970, any intelligent person who ever believed in all that hippie utopian nonsense had abundant evidence to inspire a reconsideration of their misguided idealism. Yet most of these young radicals never turned back from their destructive mission and the remaining survivors of the Sixties, now in their 70s or 80s, occasionally turn up in TV documentaries reminiscing fondly about how glorious it all was.
During a February radio interview, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert was asked about the surge of support for self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrat presidential primary. Gohmert blamed the influence of “hippies from the Sixties” who gained tenure as university professors and, by “teaching the teachers” had succeeded in “rewriting history and keeping [young people] from realizing socialism has never worked, it will never work in this world.” Gohmert’s quote was featured on left-wing blogs as one of those Crazy Things Republicans Say, yet it was a simple statement of fact. Anyone can examine, e.g., the career of Bill Ayers, the terrorist who became a professor of education. Gohmert cited the example of Ayers in a subsequent interview with Stuart Varney on Fox Business Channel in which he said, “If you go to teach as a professor in the universities and you teach the teachers, then the teachers go down and miseducate the young people.”
The phenomenon described by Gohmert is well-documented. Roger Kimball’s 1990 book Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education is a good starting point for anyone who wants to understand this problem. One of the great difficulties in explaining this to young people is that they know practically nothing about the Cold War and the reality of the Soviet menace. For more than 40 years, the central fact of American politics was that the United States was leading what John F. Kennedy called “a long twilight struggle” against the threat of Communist tyranny. 
Ignorance of Cold War history is a major reason so many young Americans are unable to understand why the collapse of the Soviet Union — “the Evil Empire,” as Ronald Reagan famously called it — proved the futility of socialism. If the Bolsheviks had been unable to bring about the egalitarian utopia promised by Marx and Engels, and if tens of millions of innocent people had died in the disastrous effort to implement “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” was this not sufficient proof that socialism was a deadly error? Yet the facts of Marxist-Leninist failure are deliberately obscured, and a dishonest version of Cold War history is promulgated, by the left-wing professors who dominate academia.
In a similar manner, the history of the Sixties has for many years been taught as a triumph of Progress, in which enlightened Youth overthrew the oppressive forces of right-wing bigotry and intolerance. Any young person who wishes to disabuse themselves of this counterfactual hippie mythology can start by 
Commie dopehead sex maniacs — how did American society travel full circle and end up in this weird time warp flashback to the 1960s? Well, the true history of the Sixties has been suppressed, which is why left-wing blogger John Avarosis freaked out in 2013 upon discovering that some private Christian schools in Louisiana were teaching the truth about hippies. The quote about “drugs and immoral lifestyles” of dirty Satan-worshipping hippies was featured in Avarosis’ blog after he learned this eighth-grade history book, from the Christian homeschooling publisher A Beka, was being used by some schools enrolling students whose tuition was funded by a new K-12 voucher program enacted by Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature. Ask yourself this: Why does a liberal blogger care so much what Louisiana kids learn about hippies?
This answer is that what we believe about history has a lot to do with what we believe about politics and, furthermore, Marxism is based on a specific theory known as historical materialism: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, and by teaching children history from this perspective, the leftists who control the education system indoctrinate our nation’s youth with a worldview that is anti-capitalist, anti-American and anti-Christian. Why do you think a University of Southern California student would vow her intention to destroy “our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy”? The answer is as simple as two words: Public education.
Commie dopehead sex maniacs are celebrated as heroes in the history taught in American public schools, and liberals are shocked to think that anyone would dare criticize the drug-addled hippies of the Sixties.
Testimony by an Expert Witness
What effect did hallucinogenic drug use have on the hippies? What role did this phenomenon play in the political and social upheavals that began during the 1960s? By a strange coincidence, one of my readers is a relative of a recognized expert on this subject. Friday morning I got an email about Dr. Harvey Powelson, who had been staff psychiatrist with the student health service at the University of California-Berkeley. The reader mentioned Dr. Powell’s critical views about the early push to provide contraceptives to UC students, in the context of what I wrote Thursday about “sexually active” people and the herpes epidemic. However, the reader also mentioned Dr. Powelson’s pioneering research on the effects of marijuana use. Dr. Powelson expanded on what is known as “amotivational syndrome,” i.e., the tendency of marijuana users to become idle and lose ambition, concluding in 1971 “that the effects of marihuana are cumulative . . . that after a period of prolonged use a disorder of thinking characterized by a lack of coherence and a pathological thinking process results.” Because of his expertise, Dr. Powelson was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1974, and I will quote here his statement at that hearing:
In 1965, I was chief of the Department of Psychiatry in the Student Health Service at the University of California in Berkeley. It was the first year of the student riots. It was also the first year that hallucinogens were becoming widely used and I, as the person responsible for mental health on the campus, was vigorously involved in the debate about psilocybin, LSD, and mescaline.
In the spring of that year a reporter for the Daily Californian, the student newspaper, asked for my opinion on marijuana. At that time I lacked any direct experience as a physician with marijuana users. The medical literature was sparse, but in general seemed to be saying that there was no proof of long-term harmful effects from marijuana. I summarized this for the reporter and said there was no proof of harm and that it should be legalized and controlled. In general, this view met with approval from most of the students and most of my professional colleagues.
In 1965, the use of marijuana spread through the Berkeley campus. Simultaneously its use was spreading to all the colleges and universities across the country. From the campus communities it spread at an accelerating rate through the surrounding communities. By now its use is subject to no age, social, or geographical barriers.
My place of observation was unique. I was routinely meeting with deans and administrators who were dealing with the drug problem and the students who were in academic and disciplinary difficulties as a consequence of the use of marijuana and its derivatives.
Most importantly, I was in daily contact with the constant flow of students through the student health service and the psychiatric clinic and hospital.
During this time (1965-1972) an increasing number of patients were using marijuana. My best guess, based on surveys and impressions, is that more than 80 per cent used it at one time or another in college. More than 50 per cent used it “socially” (1-2 times per week), and about 10 per cent were heavy users (at least 1 time daily).
My first important shift in thinking occurred as a result of observations made during psychotherapy with a young man, S., who was bright enough to be getting his law degree and Ph.D simultaneously and competent enough to be learning to fly and deal in real estate at the same time. As we proceeded in our work together, I came to know S.’s way of thinking: i.e., how he thought. Most of us do this without thinking about it. All of us come to know to some degree the way our friends and colleagues think. In therapy, the opportunity to hear someone think out loud about a problem important to him maximizes the opportunity to come to know how he uses or misuses logic, remembers clearly or not at all, does or does not exercise good judgment about his own thinking, and whether he is able to know his own feelings. We had made enough headway so that S. had begun to be able to observe and understand his own thinking. Periodically, we had hours (I was seeing him twice weekly) when his thinking became mushy. If I tried to follow him, my head began to spin. When I protested that he’d become impossible to listen to, he’d argue that his own experience was that he was thinking more clearly, more insightfully, than ever. On one such occasion, he mentioned that he’d been to a party two nights before where he’d had particular good “grass.” In Berkeley, 1968, that was not a particularly memorable remark, but we thought there might be some connection with his thinking. This same series of events recurred often enough so that I finally was able to [diagnose after the fact] that S. had some “mind-expanding drug,” usually marijuana.
S., because he was a good observer, helped show me another aspect of the thinking disorder I’m describing. Central to his difficulties was a paranoid stance toward the world. By this I mean a style of thinking characterized by a constant suspicion that one is being controlled; e.g., by the establishment, the system, etc.; and simultaneously a constant unwitting search for people and situations which will do just that; e.g., drugs, demagogues. If this manner of thinking is carried further, it blends into the condition usually called paranoia. Here the subject is controlled by voices, God, or whatever, and at the same time, he is very often “against his will” being controlled by a state hospital or jail. S. was forever talking about his search for someone or something he could trust. He very frequently clutched to himself people who were totally untrustworthy and hurt and rejected others who manifestly admired him.
When he had used marijuana, his thinking became more paranoid, i.e., he became more mistrustful of me, for instance, and at the same time, he became more wily so that he talked glibly, using cliches, theories, and “insights,” all to avoid noticing concretely and immediately whatever he was really doing and feeling in his relationship with me, as well as his relationships outside. In short, the pathological part of his thinking was exaggerated in two ways:
(1) he was more suspicious and
(2) he was more adept at fooling himself about what he was up to, while simultaneously maintaining how “aware,” “in touch,” and “loving” he was.
S. continued in therapy but also continued to use marijuana and hashish. Toward the end of his therapy I decided that so long as he muddied his thinking in this way, there was no use continuing. He, however, suffered a fatal accident (as a result of an error in judgment) before his therapy was terminated.
As I was becoming familiar with these effects of marijuana on S., I gradually learned to pick up signs when they were more subtle. I came to observe the same changes in others, i.e., that marijuana exacerbated the pathological aspects of their thinking.
Following the above described observations, I saw the same picture more and more frequently. The essence of the pattern is that with small amounts of marijuana (approximately three joints of street grade), memory and time sense are interfered with. With regular usage the active principles cause more and more distorted thinking. The user’s field of interest gets narrower and narrower as he focuses his attention on immediate sensation. At the same time his dependence and tolerance is growing. As he uses more of the drug, his ability to think sequentially diminishes. Without his awareness, he becomes less and less adequate in areas where judgment, memory, and logic are necessary. As this happens, he depends more and more on pathological patterns of thinking. Ultimately all heavy users (i.e., daily users) develop a paranoid way of thinking.
After I had become aware of the generality of this sequence, another reporter from the Daily Californian interviewed me to see if my opinions had changed in the interim. In the course of that interview, I realized in a concrete and explicit way that they had. The headline read, “Psychiatrist says pot smokers can’t think straight.” This time the response of the community and colleagues was not so approving. It is an interesting fact that questioning the claims of marijuana users leads to much more anger, vilification, and character assassination than does the opposite stance.
In subsequent years in Berkeley, both at the clinic and in my private practice, I have observed the long-term effects of cannabis. Originally, my observation was that students who had “dropped out” into the “drug scene” and were attempting to return were finding it difficult if not impossible. A frequent story is that the young person has become aware that the life he’s been leading is unsatisfactory and unproductive. He then stops drugs for six months or so and re-enters the university. When he returns to school, however, he finds that he can’t think clearly and that, in ways he finds difficult to describe, he can’t use his mind in the way he did before. Such people also seem to be aware that they’ve lost their will some place, that to do something, to do anything, requires a gigantic effort; they have become will-less — what we call anomie. They need an external director. They are ripe for a demagogue.
The changes in the capacity to think in some subjects are long lasting, if not permanent. One of my original (1967) subjects was a member of the junior faculty. He “dropped out” and used hashish exclusively for 18 months in daily doses. When he realized that it was interfering with his physical coordination, he stopped all drugs. Two years subsequent to this he returned to the university. He found that he could not do mathematics at a level which he had found possible before. Three and a half years later, his conviction was that the change was permanent. My own observations of him and other such gifted people have led me to the same conclusion, that the damage may be permanent.
My stance toward marijuana has shifted to the extent I now think it is the most dangerous drug we must contend with for the following reasons:
1. Its early use is beguiling. It gives the illusion of feeling good. The user is not aware of the beginning loss of mental functioning. I have never seen an exception to the observation that marijuana impairs the user’s ability to judge the loss of his own mental functioning.
2. After one to three years of continuous use, the ability to think has become so impaired that pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the entire thought process.
3. Chronic heavy use leads to paranoid thinking.
4. Chronic heavy use leads to deterioration in body and mental functioning which is difficult and perhaps impossible to reverse.
5. For reasons which I can’t elucidate here, its use leads to a delusional system of thinking which has inherent in it the strong need to seduce and proselytize others. I have rarely seen a regular marijuana user who wasn’t actively “pushing.”
As these people move into government, the professions, and the media, it is not surprising that they continue as “pushers”, thus continuously adding to the confusion that this committee is committed to ameliorate.
This concluding paragraph of Dr. Powelson’s testimony is important. The tendency of marijuana users to “proselytize” others, he suggested, was observable in the efforts to push for decriminalization of marijuana, a proposal that the Senate committee in 1974 was addressing. A few years later, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, there was a significant rollback of federal “War on Drugs” (begun under Richard Nixon). One reason the Left so hated the 12-year White House tenure of Reagan-Bush was that the War on Drugs was renewed.
‘Pathological Patterns of Thinking’
It is also worthwhile noticing what Dr. Powelson said about how his marijuana-using patient, despite being illogical to the point of incoherence, insisted “he was thinking more clearly, more insightfully, than ever.” The long-term user “becomes less and less adequate in areas where judgment, memory, and logic are necessary” and develops “pathological patterns of thinking.” Because this psychological effect is cumulative, after the heavy marijuana quits and tries to go back to a normal life, he finds himself unable to function at the level he did before he started using — or at least, that was Dr. Powelson’s conclusion based on his clinical experience in the late 1960s. Dopeheads don’t like to admit that their habit has any harmful effect, and as Dr. Powelson told the Senate, experts who disagreed with pro-marijuana arguments became targets of “anger, vilification, and character assassination.”
Sic semper hoc.
Misery loves company, and dopeheads with “pathological patterns of thinking” don’t like being told they have a problem. Because “marijuana impairs the user’s ability to judge the loss of his own mental functioning,” as Dr. Powelson observed, it becomes impossible for the dopehead to recognize that he is suffering the symptoms of long-term use. The paranoia described by Dr. Powelson often takes the form of reversals and projections, so that the dopehead contends that the “system” is the problem, rather than his own drug-influenced beliefs and behaviors.
Do you remember Professor Erik Loomis? He is the academic expert on homosexual lumberjacks who, in 2012, became notorious because of his deranged violent remarks about Second Amendment activists. It was Professor Loomis who inspired me to remark: “When I said that the mentally ill should be in institutions, public universities weren’t the kind of institutions I had in mind.” Readers will perhaps not be surprised to learn that Professor Loomis is in favor of legalizing marijuana and unionizing workers in the marijuana industry.
When weirdos like Professor Loomis are hired at taxpayer expense to teach history, what does this tell us about the values of academia? And what happens when these warped values become widely accepted? One effect is that, as abnormal behavior is increasingly seen as acceptable by the intellectual elite, society is expected to tolerate these behaviors and we begin “defining deviancy down,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed:
I proffer the thesis that [since the mid-1960s] the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can “afford to recognize” and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the “normal” level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. . . .
Among the examples Moynihan discussed were the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and the breakdown of the family. He observed that “a large increase in what once was seen as deviancy has provided opportunity to a wide spectrum of interest groups that benefit from re-defining the problem as essentially normal and doing little to reduce it.” As divorce and unwed motherhood became redefined as “normal,” the problems so often experienced by fatherless children became normalized, too. Violence between street gangs — often fighting over “turf” in their drug-trafficking operations — has turned many major cities into war zones. In Chicago, there have already been 333 homicides so far this year; in the month of June alone, more than 400 people in Chicago were shot, 67 of whom died of their wounds. Murder is so common in Chicago that this incessant carnage — averaging about a dozen homicides a week — is not even considered newsworthy by the national media.
The tendency toward making “previously stigmatized” behavior exempt from criticism, to tolerate behavior that was considered “abnormal by any earlier standard,” is most obvious in the area of sexuality, where academia has led the way in destigmatizing perversion.
In 2001, for example, a University of Cincinnati professor published an article entitled “The Myth of the Heterosexual: Anthropology and Sexuality for Classicists.” This built on the professor’s earlier work, “The Teratogenic Grid,” published in the 1997 anthology Roman Sexualities. More recently, he contributed a chapter entitled “Sex, Popular Beliefs, and Culture” to the 2011 anthology A Cultural History of Sexuality in the Classical World. The Yale-educated professor’s influential work popularized the idea that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not classify sexual behavior by categories that we recognize today.
Also, we might note, nowhere in the works of Plato or Cicero do we find a phrase that can be translated as “child pornography.”
University of Cincinnati professor
arrested on child pornography charges
A University of Cincinnati professor has been arrested on child porn charges. According to court papers, Holt Parker told agents that he’s collected hundreds of videos and images of child pornography. He told them he traded child porn every day. Parker answered to charges in court on March 16. A federal judge ordered him held on $250,000 bond.
The FBI says agents arrested Parker on charges of distribution and receipt of child pornography in Clifton on March 15. He’s also charged with “destruction of property to prevent seizure”, for allegedly trying to destroy a thumb drive as agents were entering his home. They say he told them he’d recently downloaded thousands of files. . . .
He allegedly told them he started trading child porn online five or six years ago.
When the FBI came to his home, they say Parker apologized to his wife for his behavior and for ruining their lives, according to court papers. He allegedly told them he’d planned to commit suicide if he was caught.
In his online trading of child pornography, Professor Holt used the identity “Mr. Cruel Daddy,” with an email account he had created in 2008. That account was linked to another account, “Anne Thrax,” that Professor Holt evidently created in 1998. Professor Holt’s wife, Barbara Burrell, who has a Ph.D. from Harvard, is also a professor at the University of Cincinnati. So this Yale-educated professor married to a Harvard-educated professor, apparently spent 10 years online using the fake female identity “Anne Thrax” before creating a another identity “Cruel Daddy,” and admitted to the FBI he had been trading child pornography over the Internet since 2010. He had thousands of files.
This is probably another random coincidence, like the case of University of Southern California Professor Walter Lee Williams, who was sentenced to five years in prison in 2014 for “flying to the Philippines and sexually assaulting underage boys he had met online.” Professor Williams was co-editor of a 1997 book, Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia, and also co-edited the 2003 book Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States: A Documentary History. A random coincidence . . .
In May, Indiana police arrested Ball State University math instructor Brian Kenneth Siebenaler, 48, on child pornography charges. A search found “thousands of images (and) videos of nude and semi-nude boys.” Siebenaler reportedly told police he had developed an “interest in boys about 10 to 15 years ago.” A random coincidence . . .
Also in May, former University of Nebraska-Kearney psychology professor Joseph Benz, 55, guilty of “possessing more than 20,000 child pornography images on his computer, including images of babies being sexually assaulted.” This was probably just a random coincidence . . .
In April, police in Pennsylvania arrested Villanova University history and classical studies professor Christopher Haas, 60, on charges of possessing more than 400 images of child pornography. Professor Haas had previously been investigated for similar allegations by federal officials, but that was just a random coincidence.
Professor Alyssa Azotea (psychology, Simmons College),Professor Michael Dean Stroup (economics, Stephen F. Austin State University), Professor James Francis Quinn (criminology, University of North Texas), Professor Douglas Paul Dohrman (health science, Texas A&M University), Professor Christopher DeZutter (chemistry, University of Minnesota-Rochester), Professor Noel Campbell (business, University of Central Arkansas), Professor Kevin Sullivan (public health, Emory University), Professor Amol Kharabe (business, Ohio University), Professor J. Martin Favor (African American studies, Dartmouth College) — would anyone care to guess what they have in common?
Yes, all of them were arrested on child pornography charges.
These random coincidences just keep piling up, don’t they? Some people might suspect “immoral lifestyles” and “pathological patterns of thinking” had become commonplace on American university campuses. But this could only be possible if Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs had taken over the country, and that could never happen, could it?
Bill and Hillary Clint at Yale University, 1970.
And, as a result, those other people have a say in what you do. Like it or not, that’s required for civilized existence.
OK slowly-
you
missed
his
point.
OK?
You can carry as with your usual blinkered stupidity if you like, but MJ does at least as harm much as booze. You can clean up a drunk, and I have as yet to see one that couldn’t function as well as he did before he became an alcoholic. That is not true of MJ. As pot gets legalized more and more, this country will reap a very sad harvest for listening to idiots like yourself.
Pinko Commie Stuff
TWO FACES OF COMMUNISM (1961)
32 page anti-communism comic produced by the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade (CACC)
The Two Faces of Communism was published at a time when communism still represented a threat to the world’s democracies. This comic accurately recounts communism’s shameful and deadly history.
Remember boys and girls, the Red Menace is real!
Maybe I’m just being incredibly dense, but I think I missed the place where you said why alcohol should be legal even though it causes massive social and personal harm.
When I was growing up, hippies were an abberation, a freak show on the news that people would cluck their tongues at and fear what this country was turning into. Today they’re running the country. This is not the same nation I grew up in, not by a damned sight. I’ll be wearing black on the 4th of July.
If you can remember the 60s then you weren’t there.
This is pretty exhaustive. I have always abbreviated it by saying that hippies and the other slacker of the era eschewed self-discipline to their own and our society’s misfortune.
I can produce fifty rampaging RadFems who will gladly tell you about the “crimes” of Christianity and how you shouldn’t be allowed to practice it For The Greater Good of Society.
Although in all fairness, they may choose to go after you because you are male.
Should those people have a say in what you do?
So do those people control you?
Marijuana Causes Demonic Infestation
The Devil’s Weed, women cry for it, men die for it! Don’t you realise that smoking Marijuana will unleash your inner vices, turning you into a sex crazed a lap-dog of Satan!
Yeah, look to an outsider the 60s was just America from the ground up, set free, taking the obvious course started during the war (1950s bike gangs were WWII veterans!). Not ‘politics’ or ‘power’ or ‘ideology” except the obvious ideology of ‘freedom’. That’s the only word we kept hearing, ‘freedom’. Meanwhile many ‘hippies’, recoiling from obvious excesses (Sinatra and Los Vegas? JFK? Marilyn Monroe? Hello?), tried to copy the rural lifestyle of Amish and other very American back-to-nature lifestyles, to escape the insane cities. The Frankfurt School? Who even heard of them before 5 years ago? Feminism? No it’s just American freedom, starting with war mobilisation which set people loose from their hometowns, Who ever said women can cope with individualist freedom anyway? Who said the great ‘freedom’ experiment was a good idea? The modern world decided to abandon 2000 years of common sense. You don’t need any “leftism” to explain it. Just your Constitution.
Can confirm. When I was in college, I needed a place to stay one summer and moved in with some potheads for a few months. It was fun and they were happy to share, but about a month after I moved out, I suddenly realized two things:
1. My short-term memory, long-term memory, perception, judgement, and motivation had all been impaired that whole time — and probably some other things too.
2. And critically, I didn’t even know any of that, because they all affected my discernment. It impaired what I would’ve needed to use to notice that I was impaired.
“Everyone said it couldn’t possibly be the pot,”
-and an unhealthy pre-disposition to violence.-
Something most drug users don’t notice is how their habit socially isolates them. As a teenage dopehead, I divided the world into “cool” (people who got high) and “straight” (people who didn’t get high), and only hung around “cool” people. When I got to college, I quickly located the “cool” people, and my friendships were formed on the basis of our shared habit. So then, I left college at 19, stopped getting high and when I returned a year later … where were my friends? Most of them had dropped out, and I discovered I no longer had anything in common with the ones who remained. By the time I graduated college, my friends were a completely different group of people.
The dopehead assigns a positive value to his habit, and considers people who don’t get high to be unenlightened. People who con’t get high are viewed as “hung up,” as we used to say. A very similar attitude is developed in terms of sexual deviancy. Most dopeheads have a bohemian attitude toward sexuality — they are hedonistic pleasure-seekers and scoff at anyone who has inhibitions (“hang-ups”) toward such activity. It is not merely that the dopehead is immoral or amoral; he becomes anti-moral — openly hostile toward any belief that would impede his pursuit of pleasure.
The old “Reefer Madness” scare stories about dopehead sex maniacs were far more accurate than anyone is willing to admit. Widespread drug use in the 1960s was closely associated with “liberated” sexuality, for the reasons stated.
If you think Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse had no influence on the Sixties counterculture, you are mistaken. If you think the radical New Left (SDS) had no influence on the Sixties counterculture, you are likewise mistaken.
The hippie “back to the land” ethos was heavily influenced by a leftist critique of capitalism as “materialistic,” especially portraying the life of corporate office workers as trapped in a meaningless competitive “rat race.” Paul Goodman’s Growing Up Absurd: Problems of Youth in the Organized Society was a bestseller. This book condemned “corporate capitalism” as a “repressive social and economic system” and has been called “one of the defining texts of the New Left.” If you need a complete bibliography demonstrating that the ideology of the Sixties counterculture had a definite origin in the left-wing intelligentsia, I will gladly provide it. However, please do not presume to lecture me on a subject that I have been studying for 20 years.
As someone who grew up during the 60’s and 70 I knew people who smoked everyday and took a lot of LSD it wasn’t log before these folks brains were cottage cheese.
And what folks ignore (although I don’t know why) those who use pot almost always drink a lot of alcohol as well.
MJ is just as harmful as booze?
No one in the history of civilization has died from an overdose of MJ. Booze can’t say that, heck even water can’t say that.
If you want to talk about long-term effects, let me point out that we have virtually nothing in the way of hard data on that subject, thanks to Schedule 1.
You argue like a teenager.
You can produce 50 rampaging RadFem liars.
Your argument was dealt with earlier. Come back with something new and I’ll respond to it.
It was you that wanted to deflect the argument in that direction. I refused to play your game. End of story.
No it wasn’t, it was dismissed as irrelevant by you. That may count as ‘dealt with’ by you, but not by me.
It’s not a deflection, it’s a comparison.
There are two substances both of which according to you cause personal and social harm.
One is legal, one is not.
Why?
You say one is worse. Going by the crime record, criminals use the legal one more.
You say one has worse long term effects. But there is no evidence of that.
New without the k.
At least get the spelling right.
That wasn’t the question.
The question was should those people have a say in what you do?
Maybe a good civilization isn’t imposed from above. Maybe it’s the obligations that someone willingly chooses knowing it’s the right thing to do.
And there we go.
You try to shift the discussion to my behavior.
We know from past experience that means you’ve given up on the topic.
Thanks for playing. We’ll see if we can’t find some nice parting gifts for you.
p.s. It’s the Socratic Method. Beloved by philosophers, lawyers, grad students and great teachers alike.
Because, you see, it gets results.
If someone is actually willing to think and not just regurgitate what they’ve been told.
Methinks you need to go back and read what I said. What you said was dealt with. You might not like what was said, but that’s a personal problem and I really don’t care about that.
You need to get out just a bit more. You also need to learn to argue without sounding like a teenager. The rest that needs to be said has already been said.
I grew up in the 60s. Remember them well. Things were pretty nice for me up until we left Oregon after my after got Orders to Germany. It was a wonder they weren’t for Vietnam, Guam, or the PI. Vietnam was heating up at the time.
Things weren’t so nice in Germany, alas.
If that’s the Socratic method, it’s a very poor copy. I have friends with PhDs in Philosophy who have demonstrated it, and you don’t sound anything like them.
Because of your behavior, you make yourself the point. If you don’t like your behavior brought up, then argue like an adult instead of a teenager.
I read what you said. All you said was that your standard of evidence on this particular subject is way lower than mine is.
Now you’re just throwing insults, which means you have no argument.
As potency has gone up, consumption has gone down to match.
If what I do affects them, they get a say. No society can work any other way. You may not like that, but it is what it is.
No, I’m tired of his nonsense and attempts at thread thievery. He has no argument and keeps coming back with the same trash. You may think that’s argument, but if so, your standards are mighty low.
You may have reads what i said, but you didn’t absorb it. I said far more than the nonsense you just posted.
Then elucidate this important distinction that you claim is there.
It’s a simple question, yet you seem unable to answer.
But it’s something that you keep avoiding.
Here, I’ll answer for you.
“MJ is worse than booze because government Experts have told us so.“
Does that just about sum it up? Or would you like to add something else?
Then by that (your) logic, they get a say in your being male or practicing your faith.
They say it affects them in a negative way. They are certainly willing to blame you.
Are you sure you want to give them that power?
But you never bring up my behavior until you run out of things to say about the discussion.
If I sounded like them, there would be no need fo me to speak.
I am me. I need be no one else.
There are things that people claim all they wish, but their claims dissipate as the hot air they are when held to scrutiny. As a consequence, they have no such power.
However, there is a power I have with you and I’m now going to exercise it. I don’t have time for a man that argues as a teenager and throws up irrelevancies at every turn in an attempt to carry on some sort of mental exercise you think is important. Moreover, I have no inclination to engage with a man that has his own agenda and tries to hijack threads at every turn on subjects that tend to put you on a soap box.
Thankfully, I don’t have to rely on Wombat anymore as Disqus has blessed us with the ability block people that are little more than ankle biters. Farewell.
I’ve blocked Neo for the same sort of BS you are now trying to pull. Go back and read what i said and absorb it with the intent it was posted. I’m not playing games with men who wish to be willfully obtuse anymore.
Your choice.
As always.
Filed under “that’s a very good question:”
Where is Noor Salman and the media that covered up her “disappearance”?
This is actually on-topic, because of the “educating the educators” strategy. These “journalists” that are studiously ignoring the elephant-free emptiness of the living room didn’t just come from nowhere.
They were educated by home haters and are home haters themselves, having gone into journalism in order destroy everything virtuous, clean, nurturing, familiar, and at all remotely normal in their homeland.
To be fair, he’s a libertarian, and he argues for libertarianism. I can see his point. The point being, once you give a corrupt, bloated government power over one thing you do, it will continue in its power grabbiness until you have no more liberties. So where exactly do we draw the line? Because I promise you, that as Christians, one day really soon we will be 100% on the wrong side of the line.
The only answer to this problem, as I see it, was morality, but it’s too late for that now; welcome to the end times.
I’ll tell you this though. Before I was a Christian, I was a regular MJ consumer for 25 years. At no time did I have cognitive issues, problems in school or on the job (and indeed, had patents), and at no time did I think I was anything other than intoxicated when I was. And now I experience no continuing effects whatsoever.
So I think anecdotal evidence is crap, honestly. Whether or not we like the idea of a properly designed longitudinal study, that’s really what’s needed.
Honest to goodness, I don’t understand this. As I say above, I was a heavy user for 25 years, and I never had discernment problems. In fact, after I quit, and mentioned this fact to people, 100% of them across the board were shocked because they didn’t know I used at all (except any of the ones I ever “partied” with). These were people who’d known me my whole life, too, and would certainly have noticed aberrant behavior. (Small town, and all that).
And I knew people later who told me they’d quit, and I’d had no idea that they’d ever used.
So I’m really surprised to hear a lot of what you’re saying in this post.