Opium [was: Re: freelance sysadmining -- superlong -- [WAS: "Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"]]
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:18:34PM -0800, donw@examen.com wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:04:57PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:36:29AM -0800, Tom wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:35:39PM +0100, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> > >
> > > I have mixed feelings. One the one hand, I read about China's opium
> > > wars in the 1800s, and see a failed people resulting from "legalizing
> > > it." On the other hand, I see a drug which causes people to fight,
> > > crash their cars, and beat their kids (alcohol) completely normalized.
>
> Not to be too much of a nit, but China's opium problems, and the Opium
> Wars, were mostly courtesey of the British, who were the pushers,
> dealers, and instigators of the whole affair, including the various
> skirmishes and battles. The situation back then was quite far from
> 'legalizing it', and was much closer to the way drugs move in the U.S.
> today, with foreign governments handling production and [illegal]
> distribution, and with the U.S. government fighting a loosing battle
> against them.
That is all true. Read Terry Parssinen's "Webs of Smoke" for the gory
details.
However, it is a blunt fact that Chinese users happily consumed the
drug (poppies from India were considered best; chinese poppies were
low-grade), and as a result, their culture, pride, and manhood were
wasted. It left a cultural mark of shame that lasts to this day.
So the point is, maybe it's not so good for millions of people to get
high, regardless of the cause :-) I'm arguing that it's okay to do pot
only insofar as it is severely limited, by law and by cultural norms.
Reply to: