Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: kmfkewm on April 22, 2013, 08:02 pm
-
Really I should mostly blame the government, as they pump out propaganda and indoctrinate the hell out of people. But I blame the people who are indoctrinated just as much. It just more clearly shows the illusion of living in a democracy than anything else does. All the politicians, statists and other government apologists always argue against violence being used against the drug enforcers and the benefactors and beneficiaries of the war on drugs, and their excuse is always that in the US there is a free political system and it is the will of the people for drugs to remain illegal, and enforcers are just doing their jobs. I wonder how many mental gymnastics these people need to do to get around the fact that we have propaganda pumped at us 24/7. If North Korea allowed free elections but the people of the country think that their leader is a fucking God, and have propaganda saying such pumped at them 24/7, would we think that they have a free political system? From the time you are a young child in school being taught lies about drugs, and told to turn your parents in if you know they are drug users, through all the grades of school even up to college in some career paths, people are taught lies about drugs. You know, a person may consider school to be a good source of information, and even otherwise somewhat intelligent people could be indoctrinated into believing the lies about drugs if they are taught lies through an institution of fucking knowledge. Not to mention the media pumps out just as much bullshit about drugs, sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly. So people are taught lies about drugs at school, the media spreads lies about drugs, people believe lies about drugs and repeat the lies to their friends further strengthening the perceived legitimacy of the propaganda. Of course churches also are against drug use, and that is like the third primary source that people get their information from (even though it is all bullshit). So we have people who are born and they go to school where they are taught lies about drugs for years, the media portray drugs in a false light, the churches portray drugs in a false light, people are surrounded by bullshit 360 degrees. And people still say that we have a free political system and that the war on drugs is the will of the people! The war on drugs is entirely manufactured ! It is a modern, artificial phenomenon !
When people have an artificially created ignorance of drugs, and the only 'knowledge' about drugs they have comes from an establishment that has it in its best interests to spread lies about drugs, how the fuck is that freedom? Seriously, most adults hold beliefs about drugs that I can only compare to what beliefs a young grade school kid would hold in regards to sex! The people are like young children in regards to drugs, an artifact of their indoctrination and artificial, manufactured ignorance. It makes me so mad to hear people say that the war on drugs is the will of the people, and that we need to convince people drugs are okay. Why do they give so much power to the government, that the government can decide that drugs are "bad" (not like they really have done this, they have only decided that they want to rob and enslave us), that the government can pump out propaganda about drugs, but then when the brainwashed masses turn us into criminals and viciously attack us, we must then be saintly to them and peacefully convince them otherwise, over decades through which we are prosecuted, enslaved and killed?
I am so sick of hearing people talk about drugs like they have a fucking clue when they are just spewing out bullshit. It makes me mad that these people have control over our lives, despite not living in reality. It is a perfect example of why I hate democracy, it is an insecure form of politics. Democracy is vulnerable to propaganda and ignorance. I do not think people should be able to vote for how things are done, rather there should be a benevolent totalitarian regime (which would inherently be libertarian anarchist, and only for the enforcement of our rights). The war on drugs, and the mechanics through which a select group of elites was able to undermine democracy and turn it into a charade benefiting themselves, is proof enough for me that Democracy is dangerous. In a Democracy the people vote for what is done, or for who decides what is done in the bastardized American form of democracy, but without the people being protected from propaganda and indoctrination, the propagandists and indoctrinators are really the ones who decide what is done! Even worse, the people are tricked into thinking they decide what is done, because they cannot see their own manipulation. They can not determine that their own knowledge is false, and that their minds have been poisoned and tainted by groups with ulterior motives. And so the people are falsely pacified, they say that we have the power and that the enforcement agencies do our will so they are not our enemies. They do no see that we have no power and that the enforcement agencies are the soldiers of the propagandists. The masses do not see that they are kept stupid so that minorities of them can be sectioned off by the government for sale into slavery, for profit of the government and the interests of those who are in the government.
Everyday we see the results of the evils of Democracy and the evils of the government. We see people needlessly dying from overdoses on drugs that they would otherwise obtain in measured dosages. We see drugs such as PMA sold as MDMA leading to many more senseless deaths. We see the funding of violent cartels leading to tens of thousands more deaths, poverty and other horrors. We see our peers sold into slavery for the profit of psychopaths. We see the spread of disease such as HIV. We see unsanitary and impossible to properly regulate practices of drug distribution leading to many issues. We see nations with citizens who are kept as stupid as small children, it is like the fucking twilight zone. The list goes on and on. Every time somebody says something like "Taking LSD 7 times causes a person to be clinically insane!" I fucking cringe, I cringe at their artificial stupidity and I cringe because I am shown clearly the falsity of Democracy, I am shown clearly that while I am ostensibly free in reality I am a slave.
-
These people never got into it. They never really cared. They just talk out of their ass and they think they know it all.
I'm with you on this one!
-
I blame the Bilderberg Group!
Basically, the last thing the Owners want is anything resembling enlightenment breaking out on a large scale. They want the Consumers to breed as much as possible (see religion vs contraception) to get an ever expanding market for their products/commodities (higher prices/profits) and even cheaper labor (more proles competing for jobs, worldwide now we're "global")
Your eloquent argument starts from the erroneous assumption that sanity is always preferred. Unfortunately that is demonstrably not the case.
In the UK, the Daily Mail newspaper is frequently held to be the Cerberus guarding Public Morality from "Killer Drugs". No politician (whether ex-pot smoker, tripper or raver) will ever dare to take them on.
Yet the other key preoccupation of this rag is the care and welfare of the elderly (because they make up most of the readers). Regrettably, they refuse to see that any dramatic innovations in e.g. Alzheimer's treatment are highly likely to come from the one area of psychopharmalogical research they campaign so vociferously against... Ironic, but sad.
Perhaps in a couple of centuries they will finally have to reverse their position as they proudly announce DMT (or a related compound) as the magic bullet for mental decrepitude...
-
I'm with you, right up until you suggest a benign dictatorship. I think democracy is possible, just not the way it's done now. Political parties should be bought down a peg or two, and we need proportional representation instead of the college system in the US or the FPTP regional representation in the UK. I also think that power needs to be devolved down to the appropriate level - something politicians talk about alot, but seem reluctant to do...
Back on to the annoying propaganda; It annoys the hell out of me! Especially when it comes from people who should know better, people who're otherwise liberal and intelligent. My usual tack is to show them charts of the relative damage of drugs to alcohol, the death stats for illegal drugs vs Rx drugs vs alcohol (check them out - death by drugs is comparable to death by alcohol, but practically all the drugs are Rx drugs! The only illegal drugs on the lists tend to be heroine, coke/crack, and meth - helium kills more people than weed!), then maybe quote a couple of studies/facts at them; usually the study from around 2005 that showed that weed only increases your chance of 'some kind' or mental disorder at some point from 1.2% to 1.8% (although this was trumpeted at the time as a '50% increase in danger' - more fucking propaganda! The only person in the media at the time who was pointing out how misleading this was was the scientist who ran the study!), the recent study showing that weed has virtually no long-term effects if you start after 18 but lots if you start before and increasing the earlier you start (a good argument for legalisation to prevent minors from obtaining it - no one checks ID on SR!), then the fact that no-one ever has died from weed, shrooms or LSD (in fact, it's actually impossible to OD on weed and acid, and shrooms are hard to as psilocybin has a very low toxcitiy , though some do contain a couple of other toxins. AFAIK there are no confirmed cases of death from any of them, though I would be interested in hearing otherwise if anyone has any evidence...). It's usually enough to set up a pretty powerful cognitive dissonance and I hope that it at least starts some people changing their minds. I think we're winning though, certainly opinion on weed is changing pretty rapidly. Don't be afraid to challenge people, just do it by pointing to respectable science and research and say something like "it's not as bad as they make out and why should I care if some hippy wants to get high - let 'em! I'd rather my taxes were spent on catching rapists and child-abusers", people find that hard to argue with...
I think national finances will play a large part in the next decade or so and as the older generation (who rarely did or knew people who did drugs) die off to be replaced by people who have done or know people who've done them, public opinion will turn and ask WTF we're spending so much money on such pointless crap when we could be using drug-sales to boost the economy.
-
LSD overdoses are possible but the LD-50 is about 150 times the average dose.
-
LSD overdoses are possible but the LD-50 is about 150 times the average dose.
Well, I dunno about that. I do know someone personally who accidentally drank an entire shot of liquid LSD (35ml) and was held in hospital for several weeks before he came down - that's easily more than 150x an average dose, unless it was REALLY diluted (possible). He was actually ok afterwards, if a little weird. Not 'crazy' or any shit like that, and last I heard he went to uni.... gonna go do some research now...
But I think we can at least agree that and overdose on LSD is a) so vastly unlikely as to be impossible and b) has not happened to anyone yet.
-
There are a few reports of LSD overdose. The primary one that comes to mind involved a mix up between crystal LSD and cocaine. The user sniffed over a hundred milligrams of pure LSD crystal, bled out their skin and died. However deaths from LSD are freak accidents. In the normal course of events, you will not overdose on LSD. It would cost thousands of dollars for the average person to obtain enough LSD to have a shot at killing themselves. If you look at Erowid you will see the estimates for LD50 are somewhere around 15mg I believe (it has been a while since I looked). This is considered a conservative estimate though, and there are many reports of people taking more than this and living. If you eat a sheet or less you can be pretty confident that you are not going to die, and if you can count the number of 100ug hits you have taken on your fingers and toes, you are not going to die.
I personally would not feel safe taking a thumbprint though. I have heard stories of people taking 25+ mg of LSD crystal and living, but I think they are indeed risking potential death at such high doses. On the other hand, the average dose is about one tenth of a single milligram, so the people taking 25 mg doses are taking 250 times as much as most people do.
-
Interesting. Just checked out the Erowid page on LSD lethality - I'd never looked before since I had read so much about LSD before I'd ever got the internet. It had this to say...
- Estimated LD50 for humans based on animal tests is 14,000ug
- Someone has been documented to have taken 40,000ug and survived
- "No well-documented human deaths resulting directly from the toxic effects of LSD itself have occurred, though LSD has been implicated in accidental deaths, suicides, and homicides."
- Only possible (so I guess, not 'well documented') death caused by LSD overdose was an estimated dose of 320,000ug
Never heard of these before, but they sound very isolated. I guess if you think about everything is lethal if you take enough. I will attenuate my statements in future, but it is still VASTLY safer than alcohol and so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Certainly, you'd have to be a proper tool and anyone who deliberately took more than 10,000ug, let alone 40,000ug or 320,000ug would be worthy of a Darwin Award!
-
I don't like people who talk about drugs based off highly limited studies from the field of humanities that is extremely limited. It basically is propaganda because only the Government funds these studies, except big pharma does as well. Philosophically the nature of consciousness and reality isn't scientific, nobody knows what _causes_ consciousness. So the field of humanities is appropriately limited in the field of drugs, and anyone who knows what a drug study looking for psychological attributes should know the first rule is: we're shooting in the dark but we're trying our best.
I find big pharma meds, and psychedelic drugs incredibly useful with regular Zyprexa and stuff in managing my post traumatic disorder. Still, they pretend things are better than they are espeically with antidepressants and I could do a gram of MDPV and be twice as sane as anyone on Prozac.
-
You need a lot of hate kmfkewm because they are billions.
-
I have no faith in democracy to solve problems, but I do have faith in the resiliency of the human mind.
Yes, brainwashing works. That's the bad news. The good news is that it doesn't work forever. Everybody believes something that they later find out to be incorrect, people do change their minds. Look at Pat Robertson for example. Many people have been resolutely against weed until they got cancer.
I think the majority of problems in our society aren't at the individual level, where they can be solved by changing minds, education. Most of our problems are structural, where perverse alignments of self interest exist, or there are incentives to enforce illogical behavior. Some of our military spending, and most of our national debt, and worse yet, our personal private consumer debt, fits into such a category.
-
CLEARNET!>>> www.maps.org
Now there's a refreshing site: proper research, done by intelligent compassionate people, heroic given the relentless government adversity they encounter at every step. Like seedlings springing out of scorched earth.
-
This is my current situation, I don't know what to do with her..or is the problem me? Lack of education, compromise? Or has she been brainwashed too!?
I used to smoke ALOT, granted I owe it to my girlfriend for getting me to stop completely - I was smoking silly amounts and living off the stuff day in, day out.
Anyway fast forward some years, I fancy a dabble again - I approach the topic with caution obviously, we sit down to have a chat and it goes like this:
me - is it because you are worried about my health/wellbeing
gf - yes I don't want you to get back into it etc etc
me - I appreciate you have every right to worry, but I can assure you I've grown up since then; I only want to try a couple, literally once every few months.
gf - Well if thats the case then were over
me - thats just silly, you're not even comprising
gf - well that's my take on it, I don't like drugs.
me - What about the cigarettes were both smoking (having argument whilst smoking)
gf - well thats different
me - why is it so?
gf - its legal
me - but you know first hand the damage and addictiveness of tobacco? why is it any different to other substances/drugs
gf - it just is, I dont like drugs...
me - ok whatever, conversation is over!
and I never did get to the bottom of why she doesn't like drugs, but will happily smoke £20 fags a day and smash a litre of vodka on a Friday night
-
"will happily smoke £20 fags a day and smash a litre of vodka on a Friday night"
Psilocybin is now being investigated for tobacco/alcohol addiction issues...see the Maps link in my earlier post.
-
Perception is everything when it comes to societal views on different types of drugs.
Designer drugs while they were legal were viewed no differently to illicit but similar ones.
You just have to look at how much more acceptable abusing prescription pills is among society, when they are in some cases as or more harmful.
Its a seriously long road back from where western society is as far as outlook, even if legalidsation/ decriminalization comes.
-
Perception is everything when it comes to societal views on different types of drugs.
...
Its a seriously long road back from where western society is as far as outlook, even if legalidsation/ decriminalization comes.
It's a fucking immense road that has a volcano on one side and a glacier on the other, if it survives at all, it will be a miracle...
It's clearly no secret now that even if e.g. weed or LSD could cure cancer and HIV, Big Pharma & Big Gov still would not be interested. The non-patent option has zero interest.
Despite this, I still believe there will come a time, albeit most likely in the distant future, when these days will be looked back upon as another "Dark Ages" in terms of mental health/well-being.
Cowed by the threat of "terror" to endure all manner of indignity in the name of "security", our only permitted remedy is available at every shopping mall. Just be careful not to tweet yourself into custody while you wait for your buddies to join you on your "retail trip"...
-
Perception is everything when it comes to societal views on different types of drugs.
...
Its a seriously long road back from where western society is as far as outlook, even if legalidsation/ decriminalization comes.
It's a fucking immense road that has a volcano on one side and a glacier on the other, if it survives at all, it will be a miracle...
It's clearly no secret now that even if e.g. weed or LSD could cure cancer and HIV, Big Pharma & Big Gov still would not be interested. The non-patent option has zero interest.
Despite this, I still believe there will come a time, albeit most likely in the distant future, when these days will be looked back upon as another "Dark Ages" in terms of mental health/well-being.
Cowed by the threat of "terror" to endure all manner of indignity in the name of "security", our only permitted remedy is available at every shopping mall. Just be careful not to tweet yourself into custody while you wait for your buddies to join you on your "retail trip"...
+1
Its kind of ironic that if half the illegal chemcials were patented by big pharma and marketed appropriately WITH THE associated lobbying, that illegals could be legal and viewed without most the prejudice and vice versa with things like xanax, rohypnol and ambien - they could just as easily have ended up the illegal versions.
-
Thanks for the +1 bro.
I think the "way in" to the public conscious might lie in this disconnected fucked up situation:
Hey all you PTSD vets, abuse victims, and terminal cancer/AIDS patients, here is something which might just help. THEY would rather you didn't have it, cos they say they need to "think of the children", but you're not a child, and you need some serious help...?
-
This is my current situation, I don't know what to do with her..or is the problem me? Lack of education, compromise? Or has she been brainwashed too!?
I used to smoke ALOT, granted I owe it to my girlfriend for getting me to stop completely - I was smoking silly amounts and living off the stuff day in, day out.
Anyway fast forward some years, I fancy a dabble again - I approach the topic with caution obviously, we sit down to have a chat and it goes like this:
me - is it because you are worried about my health/wellbeing
gf - yes I don't want you to get back into it etc etc
me - I appreciate you have every right to worry, but I can assure you I've grown up since then; I only want to try a couple, literally once every few months.
gf - Well if thats the case then were over
me - thats just silly, you're not even comprising
gf - well that's my take on it, I don't like drugs.
me - What about the cigarettes were both smoking (having argument whilst smoking)
gf - well thats different
me - why is it so?
gf - its legal
me - but you know first hand the damage and addictiveness of tobacco? why is it any different to other substances/drugs
gf - it just is, I dont like drugs...
me - ok whatever, conversation is over!
and I never did get to the bottom of why she doesn't like drugs, but will happily smoke £20 fags a day and smash a litre of vodka on a Friday night
I hate that kind of attitude. Basically, anyone taking your GFs stance is saying "it doesn't matter how dangerous A is and how safe B is, so long as the government allows A but not B I will consider A 'ok' and B 'bad'....". Never has the phrase 'sheeple' applied so appropriately. Tough situation - I feel for you....
-
I agree with most of what you're saying kmfkewm.
I don't think it's democracy's "fault" though - it lies in the hands of the rich. Regardless of the political system, the rich will always try to keep the poor down. You could never bet on a benevolent totalitarian state, because people don't live forever and you might find one person with your ideals to run the show, but some rich asshole will fuck with it when you're dead.
Our society has developed perfect slavery.
Through credit cards, taxes, student loans and our love of "stuff" we lead our lives working for VISA/MC/AMEX/Banks and the Government.
Through indoctrination via television, films and radio, we've created a society that is SO complacent that they will ignore everything around them just to participate in that propaganda. (Sorry, I can't protest against that unjust law tonight, I'm watching Glee) I've seen people ignore the needy and the helpless because they're late for work, "oh it's just that guy that stands on that corner every day." We watch people get killed and beaten and do nothing to help.
We allow the government to pass laws taking away more of our freedoms without so much as a peep. Many people think protesting and protestors are bad due to media propaganda, but what they don't realize is that protest is the ONLY way the public has to tell the government what they think. Go ahead, write to your congressman/MP - he/she doesn't read that crap, and even if they do, you aren't paying them as much as the lobbyists.
The reason western democracy isn't working well right now is people aren't participating in it. Only lawyers and political scientists care to try, and those tight-shirts don't want anything to do with our freedoms. I think there is something seriously wrong with allowing politicians to use that as a career. The job of government shouldn't be to be good at politics - it's there to help facilitate trade, keep the peace, and to further the interests of the people. Not the six people with trillion dollar bank accounts, the people in general. What does a politician know about internet freedom? Next to nothing! So why are a bunch of know-nothings voting about it in congress?
I prefer a more Greek democracy, where anybody can put their name in to the pool and is randomly chosen, though that presents its own issues.
Our pre-19th century drug freedom, and freedom in general, was very much tainted by individuals practicing right-by-might.
We still use that to a large degree, in everything from business to war, but democracy allows the weak a voice they would not have in a totalitarian, monarchy, or fascist state. I think we just need to use it better by kicking its ass through flooding it with common sense. The republicans used to be liberal and the democrats conservative, and that's flipped. Infiltrate and indoctrinate is how you win.
If we all joined the republican party, by the next election we'd have Clint Eastwood talking to chairs that aren't even there, and maybe introduce some much needed chill to those folks.
-
I hate that kind of attitude. Basically, anyone taking your GFs stance is saying "it doesn't matter how dangerous A is and how safe B is, so long as the government allows A but not B I will consider A 'ok' and B 'bad'....". Never has the phrase 'sheeple' applied so appropriately. Tough situation - I feel for you....
Especially when they're shoveling down large doses of prescription psych meds with side effects that make hard drugs looks reasonable.
EDIT: I didn't mean the above as bashing on all prescription meds; I just meant people who allow a certain type of ignorance and lack of critical evaluation to color their perceptions of drug use, ironically not realizing they benefit a certain amount from the drugs they take as well, except they're ok because they're "establishment approved"
-
Stop hating!
-
All in all the problem on general public outlook on drugs was defined back in the 50s and 60s and has just gotten worse via the ongoing war on drugs.
I think in the long run, even viewing addicts as people who have a disease and need to be cured isn't doing the outlook of the general public any favors either.
Eventually they will stop locking people up for possession and minor dealing (Portugal) and I hope when it happens somewhere the resulting drop in crime gives the rest of the world evidence they cannot ignore.
The problem lies in what they call "pre use education" which is ofc facts interspersed with a mass propaganda.
It sucks, but the road back is going to take ages. Just getting back to where "snuff" and "opium" was associated with refinement and social habit (like smoking) is perhaps impossible (at least for several generations) cos once you poison the population with propaganda like that there is no going back, and your average non drug user has no need to get educated. Parents will always take a precautionary approach. My parents learnt the hard way when I was a kid that general decriminalization would be a better approach than where society is at atm.
It sucks but its here to stay until we get old and grey at least.
-
It's the hypocrisy which hurts more than anything. Most current politicians have either direct or indirect experience of recreational drug use in their private lives. How much brain-ache do they endure on a daily basis trying to maintain a logical position so terrifyingly far removed from actual facts? Presumably the oil, tobacco, alcohol, pharma & incarceration lobbyists are on-hand with back rubs etc as and when required?
-
I agree and share the opinion of mostly everyone here. So don't get me wrong.
Because i have to say, you all make one major error;
First of all, why you take the government and society so serious? Who gives a fuck about them? If you really want a change you need to start with it yourself!
I don't want mass slaughter of animals, so i don't eat them anymore and friends and family get inspired and influenced by it. Therefore i have a clear consciousness and can say i did something; and in reality i changed something.
We need to take responsibility for our actions, only this can create a broad change. A revolution starts from within. Be the change you want to be. That might sound like some pop-song shit, but it's true i know and experienced.
If you want a change, you are the promoter and you have to convince your surroundings.
Who the fuck cares, if it's legal or illegal, don't give the government powers they don't have. Yes, i agree the system is shitty, but you need to deal and adapt to it. Just be smart and low profile. I never had a problem with the law after 10 years of drug related stuff.
At the end of the day, sites like Silkroad or other will continue to thrive and you will have easy access to drugs. And if your friends or family have some mental problems or other shit, you have the experience and knowledge with these drugs and the possibility to help them.
And if you are honest to yourself, you don't really give a fuck about other people you don't know and you are only pissed, because you can't act freely and openly. You are also proud, because you overcame this state of mind and like to brag about it.
So i don't think to; "hate people who are caught in this gov propaganda" is the way to go. Someone who is stronger shouldn't look down to the weaker or dumber people of society, someone who is enlightened should spread the word as much as possible, you should try to empower and help these idiots out, with kindness, respect and caring.
You never know, where they could help you and you probably don't realize where your weaknesses and failures are. Elitism is exactly how the govnmt thinks and acts. Don't be like them, be like us. If you don't do it, no one will.
edit: forgot to mention, psychedelic drug use at high rate ever in the U.S., the revolution already started...
CLEARNET* thejointblog.com/psychedelic-drug-use-at-ahighest-rate-ever-in-u-s/ *CLEARNET
-
I don't like people who talk about drugs based off highly limited studies from the field of humanities that is extremely limited. It basically is propaganda because only the Government funds these studies, except big pharma does as well.
You're so fucking right about this.
And how many drugs are made illegal before anything other than a biased, clinical trial can be conducted? The only way to fully understand the positive and negative impacts of a substance is to release it freely into the mass population without any stigma attached to it. Which is a catch 22 in its self.
Such is life.
-
I totally agree with the OP on all except the point about needing government at all. However, until the internet there has been few examples of working decentralised systems of law, the one example I know of https://mises.org/daily/1121 medieval iceland.
For the most part, the low rate of information distribution without the internet made such systems as this difficult to conceive of, let alone implement.
Just to be clear, Democracy literally means 'rule of the people'. 'people' is plural for person, the same as 'mob' is a pejorative plural for person. When people get into groups, the persuasion skills of manipulators and the physical force of the most violent, combined with the fear and ignorance of the rest of the group almost always leads to politics. Politics is nothing more than lies and manipulation to suit the elite class. Politics is based on the idea of serfs and oligarchs, that the bulk of the population is the property of this elite class.
However, I have been thinking a lot about this for some time and a couple of months ago, inspired by a heavy duty 1mg dose of bromo-dragonfly and some far out jebus realisations, I figured out that the key thing to making a harmonious society without the use of vertical hierarchic top-down violence, is public confession (hence the jebus thing). This could be implemented in a contract/reputation system. The contracts themselves are largely private, though they can be public as well such as an offer to sell some item or service. The important thing is that the system makes it easy for you to read and agree and digitally sign the contract, and then both parties involved, once the contract is completed, can make a rating of their counterparty.
This is very much analogous to a public confession, by using such a system you are basically saying 'I want my track record to be public knowledege'. This track record also includes how you tend to rate people. In such a system either people will be glad for the easy and simple means of achieving transparency, and will prefer to be able to say after the fact that both they and the other party were happy with the outcome. In the event that such a win-win cannot be achieved, it will then devolve to the use of representatives (like in the icelandic model) who will then both go over the evidence and testimony and agree to a settlement (or if they can't agree, they can pass it on to their own trusted representatives, and so on).
Such a system would largely replace both police and courts, indeed such a system would allow private security and private courts to operate with a transparent track record that reduces the ability of malicious players to distort information and profit at others expense. It would not require a centralised government, it would function perfectly well with a large group of developers who all check each other's work looking for kudos for catching mischief or fixing security flaws, simply as a standard. Ultimately such a system would be best if it was universal, or if not, that a variety of different variants of the system that can largely co-operate or people could build bridges between differing implementations.
Anyway, as an avid pharmacology researcher of many years, I have constantly had to contend with idiots who regurgitate rubbish they hear on the street or from tv or from 'trusted people' (who regurgitated it as well), as well as the whole 'drug free is better' attitude, as though the choice to use drugs or not defines one's inherent virtue. To me, drugs are just one of the many types of ways that humans improve their lives. It is just plain idiotic to say that anyone who does drugs is only harming themselves. If that were true, why aren't people walking around cutting themselves up all day long? oh, because it HURTS. so if drugs caused pain, people would not do them. Clearly this idea that 'drugs are bad' is bunk because nobody would do them if they were, the same as nobody (well, except for a few really messed up people) would want to eat dogshit.
The action axiom applies here: all human action aims to eliminate discomfort through the use of reason to find the most efficient method of eliminating discomfort. This is why people use drugs, because they are efficient, at least in terms of time and immediacy. Of course doing too much of any drug is not a good thing, but it's nobody else's business than the person administering the drugs to themselves to decide what that line actually is. Nobody learns to walk by being lifted up and trotted around like a dolly, we have to do it ourselves. Same goes for any decision a person makes about their own property, the most primary being their own body.