Sunday, 19 August 2012
POEM GORDON READS AT WAYNES FUNERAL
Sunday, 12 August 2012
COMMUNICATION
Speaking is not indispensable. It is communicating that is.
You see, many millennia ago, before people learned to speak, they could communicate.
A language is merely a medium of communication. It is not the language that is important.
It is what the language conveys that matters.
For purposes of this paper, by language is meant that medium of communication that relies on phonation.
You see, dear reader, not all people can speak. On the other hand, all people can communicate.
This reality clearly captures the folly of laying too much emphasis on the ability to speak, to literally lend voice to one’s thoughts.
In future, Zambia should elect a president who cannot speak English, or better still, one that cannot speak at all.
It is difficult to imagine this, yet allow it, but it should be permitted because it is not the speech of a person that we should focus upon, it is the content of his mind that we must decipher and understand.
From the outset, let me state that this paper does not present an argument against language or speaking.
This paper merely argues against the exaggerated emphasis that human societies have placed on language.
This paper argues for letting all people communicate.
You see, dear reader, language can indeed be a barrier to communication.
Let me illustrate.
Take Zambia for instance. Zambia has adopted English as its official language.
Now, dear reader, how many Zambians today, in April of 2011, can speak in English let alone understand it well?
The answer to this question ought to worry every advocate of communication.
The answer is that only a small fraction of the 13 million Zambians can articulate their thoughts fluently in English or understand thoughts articulated to them fluently in English.
From the foregoing, you will then see that when emphasis is placed on the expression of one’s thoughts in one language this then becomes a veritable barrier not only to communication but to the participation by people in matters dear to their own welfare.
Lamentably, sometimes such emphasis, a veritable form of segregation is legislated for and enforced by law.
Through such fallible legislation, many people, people that have something of value to ‘say’ or communicate are not allowed to do so and by such exclusion, many human societies are denied the indispensable contribution to human advancement from many.
In Zambia, if a person cannot speak in English or understand what is being said in English, such a person is often viewed as possessing a lower standing in society.
Such a person is treated askance, frowned upon and shunned as if with a disgusting disease.
People that are so discriminated against are often viewed as inferior in intelligence or backward.
This is wrong.
Though it truly reflects intelligence, the ability to speak a language, be it English or any other, is not a direct or reliable or sole measure of an individual’s intelligence.
There are many people in the world today that simply cannot speak and yet they are intelligent, knowledgeable and wise.
Note that.
You see dear reader, there should come a time in the life of Zambia as a nation when one should be allowed to become Republican president without placing one’s language as a pre-condition, without insisting that such a person should be able to speak at all or speak in a particular language such as English.
It is not the language that one uses that is important. It is what they have to communicate that we must place the premium on.
Besides, should interpretation be called for when one wishes to communicate, let the services of one so coached in such ways be engaged for purposes of ensuring that the audience receives the message from the one sending it.
Media of communication are many.
Dear reader, observe that in human life, there is both verbal and non-verbal communication. And fluency in both these ways of communicating can indeed be attained.
It is not that we should let the people speak; it is that we should let the people communicate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Republican president expressing his or her thoughts in Chitonga, Chichewa, Icibemba or Kikaonde.
Such an approach to communication would broaden the field for people to participate in their own governance without the now extant subtle yet real exclusive practice.
In addition, such an approach would enable all to benefit from the thoughts of many.
At present, only a few exposed citizens have the opportunity to undertake national activities for the sole reason that they can express themselves well in English, albeit itself a foreign language.
The shameful thing is that the excluded many are very knowledgeable people, are profoundly intelligent and are admirably wise.
Usual are the moments when out of courtesy people do not protest when their leader addresses them in English.
Despite their not understanding what their leader is saying, they remain quiet based on the fear of being found out that they cannot understand him or her or merely because of sheer politeness.
In times like these, communication then fails.
The leader then goes away mistakenly thinking he passed on the message, and the audience leaves quietly disgruntled and muttering under their breath their anger at the arrogance that seemingly educated people tend to exhibit. Discord remains.
Dear reader, there should come a time in Zambia when fluent in Chikunda, a Republican president will articulate in that language the contents of a National Development Plan (NDP) to the country’s citizens.
An interpreter or interpreters will then play their part to make the message understandable to the rest of the citizens that are Chikunda-naive.
Such a level of national tolerance and acceptance shall veritably reflect a higher state of being for the country.
The argument in this paper is that the deaf and dumb are not idiots.
An idiot is here defined as a person whose mental capacity is so rudimentary as to render such a person non-functional.
The deaf and dumb, you see, are truly not idiots.
Many of them, if not all, are highly intelligent people, people that possess knowledge and wisdom, who merely suffered the misfortune of losing the ability to speak and hear either from birth or afterwards.
Now, dear reader, here is the million dollar question. Would you allow a deaf and dumb person to become your Republican president?
Chances are, because you are so bigoted, you would not allow it and yet it is perfectly in order that such a person should be offered an equal chance at such leadership.
The probability of a deaf and dumb person becoming Republican president anywhere in the world is a slim one if at all extant.
This is so not because such people cannot lead. It is because society is so mistakenly prejudiced. It is because we do not exist in a barrier-free environment.
Though Nature provides for such people to lead, on the other hand, man has mistakenly erected huge barriers such as language which preclude the participation of such people in national leadership as exemplified above.
Dear reader, note that a ‘deaf and dumb’ person is here used metaphorically as well as literally.
A deaf and dumb person is in this paper illustrated as a proxy for someone who cannot speak.
After all, as an example, if you cannot speak Kikaonde or French, aren’t you really deaf and dumb in as far as that language is concerned?
You see, the use of language is a veritable exaggerated fixture in the lives of human beings.
When emphasis is placed on speaking one particular language for communication in a nation, this then represents a clear barrier that excludes the participation of many in their own affairs.
Barriers can be a good thing. Naturally, barriers define what should be done and what should not.
For instance, in Nature, barriers prescribe the boundaries of what is evil and what is not. Nonetheless, barriers to human survival and prosperity ought to be eliminated.
Dear reader, English in Zambia is a veritable barrier to the progress of many.
Though its use should not be abolished but encouraged instead, the use of other languages, languages that Zambians are comfortable with and fluent in should also be legislated for, encouraged and reach wide acceptance.
Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not expressed in one language.
These are universal to all human beings.
Yes, let the people speak, but more importantly, let the people communicate.
You see, a visit to the lion’s den teaches one a lot about the lion.
Similarly, your habitat says a lot about you, dear reader.
You see, many millennia ago, before people learned to speak, they could communicate.
A language is merely a medium of communication. It is not the language that is important.
It is what the language conveys that matters.
For purposes of this paper, by language is meant that medium of communication that relies on phonation.
You see, dear reader, not all people can speak. On the other hand, all people can communicate.
This reality clearly captures the folly of laying too much emphasis on the ability to speak, to literally lend voice to one’s thoughts.
In future, Zambia should elect a president who cannot speak English, or better still, one that cannot speak at all.
It is difficult to imagine this, yet allow it, but it should be permitted because it is not the speech of a person that we should focus upon, it is the content of his mind that we must decipher and understand.
From the outset, let me state that this paper does not present an argument against language or speaking.
This paper merely argues against the exaggerated emphasis that human societies have placed on language.
This paper argues for letting all people communicate.
You see, dear reader, language can indeed be a barrier to communication.
Let me illustrate.
Take Zambia for instance. Zambia has adopted English as its official language.
Now, dear reader, how many Zambians today, in April of 2011, can speak in English let alone understand it well?
The answer to this question ought to worry every advocate of communication.
The answer is that only a small fraction of the 13 million Zambians can articulate their thoughts fluently in English or understand thoughts articulated to them fluently in English.
From the foregoing, you will then see that when emphasis is placed on the expression of one’s thoughts in one language this then becomes a veritable barrier not only to communication but to the participation by people in matters dear to their own welfare.
Lamentably, sometimes such emphasis, a veritable form of segregation is legislated for and enforced by law.
Through such fallible legislation, many people, people that have something of value to ‘say’ or communicate are not allowed to do so and by such exclusion, many human societies are denied the indispensable contribution to human advancement from many.
In Zambia, if a person cannot speak in English or understand what is being said in English, such a person is often viewed as possessing a lower standing in society.
Such a person is treated askance, frowned upon and shunned as if with a disgusting disease.
People that are so discriminated against are often viewed as inferior in intelligence or backward.
This is wrong.
Though it truly reflects intelligence, the ability to speak a language, be it English or any other, is not a direct or reliable or sole measure of an individual’s intelligence.
There are many people in the world today that simply cannot speak and yet they are intelligent, knowledgeable and wise.
Note that.
You see dear reader, there should come a time in the life of Zambia as a nation when one should be allowed to become Republican president without placing one’s language as a pre-condition, without insisting that such a person should be able to speak at all or speak in a particular language such as English.
It is not the language that one uses that is important. It is what they have to communicate that we must place the premium on.
Besides, should interpretation be called for when one wishes to communicate, let the services of one so coached in such ways be engaged for purposes of ensuring that the audience receives the message from the one sending it.
Media of communication are many.
Dear reader, observe that in human life, there is both verbal and non-verbal communication. And fluency in both these ways of communicating can indeed be attained.
It is not that we should let the people speak; it is that we should let the people communicate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Republican president expressing his or her thoughts in Chitonga, Chichewa, Icibemba or Kikaonde.
Such an approach to communication would broaden the field for people to participate in their own governance without the now extant subtle yet real exclusive practice.
In addition, such an approach would enable all to benefit from the thoughts of many.
At present, only a few exposed citizens have the opportunity to undertake national activities for the sole reason that they can express themselves well in English, albeit itself a foreign language.
The shameful thing is that the excluded many are very knowledgeable people, are profoundly intelligent and are admirably wise.
Usual are the moments when out of courtesy people do not protest when their leader addresses them in English.
Despite their not understanding what their leader is saying, they remain quiet based on the fear of being found out that they cannot understand him or her or merely because of sheer politeness.
In times like these, communication then fails.
The leader then goes away mistakenly thinking he passed on the message, and the audience leaves quietly disgruntled and muttering under their breath their anger at the arrogance that seemingly educated people tend to exhibit. Discord remains.
Dear reader, there should come a time in Zambia when fluent in Chikunda, a Republican president will articulate in that language the contents of a National Development Plan (NDP) to the country’s citizens.
An interpreter or interpreters will then play their part to make the message understandable to the rest of the citizens that are Chikunda-naive.
Such a level of national tolerance and acceptance shall veritably reflect a higher state of being for the country.
The argument in this paper is that the deaf and dumb are not idiots.
An idiot is here defined as a person whose mental capacity is so rudimentary as to render such a person non-functional.
The deaf and dumb, you see, are truly not idiots.
Many of them, if not all, are highly intelligent people, people that possess knowledge and wisdom, who merely suffered the misfortune of losing the ability to speak and hear either from birth or afterwards.
Now, dear reader, here is the million dollar question. Would you allow a deaf and dumb person to become your Republican president?
Chances are, because you are so bigoted, you would not allow it and yet it is perfectly in order that such a person should be offered an equal chance at such leadership.
The probability of a deaf and dumb person becoming Republican president anywhere in the world is a slim one if at all extant.
This is so not because such people cannot lead. It is because society is so mistakenly prejudiced. It is because we do not exist in a barrier-free environment.
Though Nature provides for such people to lead, on the other hand, man has mistakenly erected huge barriers such as language which preclude the participation of such people in national leadership as exemplified above.
Dear reader, note that a ‘deaf and dumb’ person is here used metaphorically as well as literally.
A deaf and dumb person is in this paper illustrated as a proxy for someone who cannot speak.
After all, as an example, if you cannot speak Kikaonde or French, aren’t you really deaf and dumb in as far as that language is concerned?
You see, the use of language is a veritable exaggerated fixture in the lives of human beings.
When emphasis is placed on speaking one particular language for communication in a nation, this then represents a clear barrier that excludes the participation of many in their own affairs.
Barriers can be a good thing. Naturally, barriers define what should be done and what should not.
For instance, in Nature, barriers prescribe the boundaries of what is evil and what is not. Nonetheless, barriers to human survival and prosperity ought to be eliminated.
Dear reader, English in Zambia is a veritable barrier to the progress of many.
Though its use should not be abolished but encouraged instead, the use of other languages, languages that Zambians are comfortable with and fluent in should also be legislated for, encouraged and reach wide acceptance.
Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not expressed in one language.
These are universal to all human beings.
Yes, let the people speak, but more importantly, let the people communicate.
You see, a visit to the lion’s den teaches one a lot about the lion.
Similarly, your habitat says a lot about you, dear reader.
REASONS I DON'T LIKE VISITING RICH PEOPLE.
Question: "what would you like to drink...coffee, tea, fruit juice, milo, hot chocolate or soda?
A. Tea please
Q. Ceylon tea, herbal tea, bush tea,honey bush tea,ice tea or green tea?
A. Ceylon tea please.
Q. How would you like it? Black or white?
A. White please.
Q. Milk, whitener or condensed milk?
A. Milk please.
Q. Milk from freezeland, or Afrikaaner cow?
A. Afrikaaner cow please.
Q. Warm or cold?
A. Warm please.
Q. Full cream, low fat or fat-free?
A. Ummmm..you know what, I'll rather take it black.
Q. Would you like it with sweetener, sugar or honey?
A. Sugar please.
Q. Beet sugar or cane sugar?
A. Cane sugar please.
Q. White, brown or yellow sugar?
A. Ok, just forget about the tea, I'll just have a glass of water instead.
Q. Mineral or still water?
A. Mineral water please.
Q. Flavored, non-flavored or spakling?
A. Hey, voetsek man, just get me water from the river...I don't wanna' know which river...and stop asking so many damn questions!!!
A. Ceylon tea please.
Q. How would you like it? Black or white?
A. White please.
Q. Milk, whitener or condensed milk?
A. Milk please.
Q. Milk from freezeland, or Afrikaaner cow?
A. Afrikaaner cow please.
Q. Warm or cold?
A. Warm please.
Q. Full cream, low fat or fat-free?
A. Ummmm..you know what, I'll rather take it black.
Q. Would you like it with sweetener, sugar or honey?
A. Sugar please.
Q. Beet sugar or cane sugar?
A. Cane sugar please.
Q. White, brown or yellow sugar?
A. Ok, just forget about the tea, I'll just have a glass of water instead.
Q. Mineral or still water?
A. Mineral water please.
Q. Flavored, non-flavored or spakling?
A. Hey, voetsek man, just get me water from the river...I don't wanna' know which river...and stop asking so many damn questions!!!
Friday, 10 August 2012
LIFE ADVICE- CAN PEOPLE IN A RELATIONSHIP HAVE OPPOSITE SEX FRIENDS?
By the time we spend countless hours at work or school, along with other activities with friends of the opposite sex, we often end up associating with our "friends" more than we interact with our partner. Not to mention, how easily technology and social media have created new platforms for friendships with the opposite sex—yet, again, not with our own spouse.
As society becomes increasingly more integrated among gender lines, the age-old question remains: "Can men and women really just be friends?" While many people think that platonic friendships can indeed exist, the answer often differs from those who are single and those who are in a relationship. The idea of meeting an opposite-sex friend for coffee or a movie seems fraught with the possibility for misinterpretation and hurt feelings with our significant others.Over the years I have asked a few of my friends and received mixed answers. Most were totally against opposite sex friends while others found nothing wrong with the idea. Responses ranged from, "My man and I made a deal early on to not have opposite-sex friendships. I think relationships are hard enough without adding that stress to it". "I trust my g/f and feel certain she would never act inappropriately outside of our relationship." Some manage to maintain opposite-sex friendships. If both partners agree, the friendship can shift to a group dynamic, with each friend bringing their respective partners into the mix. Not all opposite-sex friendships are well received. I'll give you a story: Jane’s b/f was training for a marathon with a group of women and men. However, Jane became extremely uncomfortable when she learned that her b/f was running the long runs solely with another woman. "He has never given me reason to worry, but I still didn’t like the thought of just the two of them spending so much time alone," says Jane. She told her b/f about her feelings and after reassuring Jane that there was no attraction, he eventually agreed to stop running alone with the woman when he started getting mixed signals from the other woman. Here are a few tips to ponder: 1. Listen to your intuition. If you feel deep down that your friend has romantic feelings for you, do not pursue the platonic friendship. 2. Keep personal space and physical touch in check. Although the relationship may be more relaxed than a workmate, schoolmate or client, keep the same amount of distance and space you would with your friends g/f or b/f. Close proximity and intimate touch is reserved for your partner alone. 3. Don't discuss your partner's flaws with your friend. Even if you consider yourself very close friends, it's a form of betrayal to vent to your friend about your partner's shortcomings, especially without addressing it with your b/f or g/f first. 4. Meet in public places at appropriate times of day. Just like mom used to say, "Nothing good happens after 1:00 a.m.," the same holds true with your friend. Time and place is a consideration when meeting with your friend of the opposite gender. 5. Include your b/f or g/f in your plans. If it's only platonic, there should be no problem with one more person tagging along. 6. Your partner always comes first. If your relationship with your friend is causing problems in your relationship, your first consideration should always be your partner. While there is no clear-cut answer to that age-old question of whether men and women can truly be just friends, for people in relationships, the message is clear: tread carefully and keep your relationship with your partner above all others. No matter how successfully you think you’re managing your relationship and your opposite-sex friendship, if your partner thinks it’s a problem, then it is indeed a problem. PS: It's difficult to not create relationships with the opposite sex if they are your co workers or school mates |
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
The Old Man, The Boy and The Donkey
Later they passed more people who remarked "What a shame he makes the little boy walk." So they both walked.
The next group they passed remarked how foolish they were to walk when they had a donkey. So they both rode the donkey.
The fourth group from PETA were upset about the overloaded donkey. So they decided to carry the donkey. As they crossed the river, they lost their grip and dropped the donkey to it’s death.
Moral of the story: If you try to please everyone you may as well kiss your ass goodbye.
When you teach or learn new ideas you’re never gonna make everyone happy.
When you change your mind you’re gonna piss people off.
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
The limitations of man
The resources that earth, which is only a fraction of nature, has are vast. Nature is endowed with resources so staggeringly abundant that man is yet to fully comprehend their full extent.
With good thinking on his part inspiring judicious usage, man, as a collective, should surely have a good life for an indefinite period of time.
Dear reader, many of the definitions and categorisations that presently exist and upon which your everyday life and understanding of your environment are based are false.
You have heard of the classification of substances into poisonous and non-poisonous ones. You have been told that there are bad and good things on earth. As an attempt at guiding people on earth, such categorisations ought to be respected and whoever came up with them should truly and sincerely be commended.
Nonetheless, the fact is, these categorisations are grossly misleading. They are not a reflection of the whole truth.
Dear reader, to stretch your mind a little, be informed that there is no such thing as a poison. This is the truth.
Granted, to say that a given substance can terminate life or kill is correct. On the other hand, to label a substance a poison is not good human practice. It is that kind of behaviour that should be discouraged. It is misleading.
Note that a given substance is a poison only because we say so not because it is. Further, take note that it is the utility, the utilisation or mal-utilisation of a given substance that makes it a poison or not. It is not that the thing is poisonous; it is its utility that makes it so.
Worth noting is that the same substance which can kill, under different circumstances, can also cause life to be preserved.
Interestingly, water too can be poisonous!
Dear reader, I want you to know that I do not smoke. I do not smoke cigarettes or anything. This is important for you might misunderstand what I am about to tell you if I do not say so.
Now listen to this. It might surprise you.
There is nothing wrong with marijuana. In addition, there is nothing wrong with tobacco. This, dear reader, is the immutable truth. Think about it for a while.
That the two plants form part of the whole gamut of the resources that earth is replete with is not at all in dispute.
You see, way before marijuana was banned, in primeval times, it was beneficially being used in the everyday lives of the people that had access to it then. Whether they used it properly or not is a moot point.
The banning of the smoking of marijuana by many countries is understandable. One empathises with the authorities behind these bans because their action, though not fully informed by the whole truth, is indeed cautionary. The authorities behind these bans really mean well, you see.
Nonetheless, these bans are a veritable reflection of our limitations as people. Banning the use or smoking of marijuana is an action founded on fear inspired by ignorance. Though such action is supposed to protect people it does not, in the long run, advance human development and neither does it help humanity in the end. Such bans have only phasal benefits.
Banning marijuana is not sustainable. Arresting those that possess or smoke it is yet another of those fallacious and ridiculous acts of man. It clearly depicts the folly of law; the criminalisation of the innocent.
You see, in the coming years, growing marijuana, possession of marijuana or smoking it will not be a crime. This development is indeed coming. It is inevitable. The inevitability of this development is ensured by the inevitability of enlightenment.
Similarly, banning tobacco smoking is understandable. Nonetheless, it is still only a pathetic attempt at protecting people. It too, is neither practicable nor sustainable for there is indeed nothing wrong with tobacco. Tobacco is useful.
Granted, the current use of tobacco leads to the development of many diseases but that is not the same as saying that tobacco causes disease or that it is bad. Tobacco itself, you see, does not cause disease. It is the use, or rather misuse or abuse, of tobacco that does that.
It might shock you, dear reader, that the current way of consuming tobacco, via cigarettes such as Guards, Peter Stuyvesant or Consulate is wrong. Present cigarettes are only a poor approximation of what ought to be the right way to consume tobacco but which way has not yet been invented or discovered.
What ought to happen is that tobacco smoking needs to be made safe. Similarly, marijuana processed in the right way can be of immense value to human health.
The banning of the smoking of tobacco or marijuana if it was intended to lead to the manufacture of better products or use would be welcome but it does not presently do that. In so far as it serves the interests of public health, it is welcome but note that a ban that does not lead to heightened research aimed at finding better ways of using tobacco or marijuana lamentably fails to advance the case for human development.
Truly, such a ban shall repeatedly be flouted.
Truth be told, in future, people will be able to use tobacco without developing cancer or hypertension in the process. It might even be used for the reversal of these conditions.
For example, that tobacco smoking today predisposes to the development of many diseases is a clear reflection of the limitations of man. It simply means that man has not yet understood the full value intrinsic to the tobacco leaf. The value of tobacco to his wellbeing is yet to be fully harnessed by man.
Fact: Tobacco is a valuable resource for the well being of humanity.
Fact: Marijuana is a valuable resource for the wellbeing of humanity.
It is the un-informed or poor utilisation of earth's substances which gives rise to the classifications of these substances into poisonous ones and non-poisonous ones, lethal and non-lethal ones.
The truth is that any substance that is said to be poisonous, at the right dose or taken in the right quantities and in the right way, that same substance, could save lives.
Further, note that substances that enhance human life can be taken through the skin, mouth, lungs, anally and so on.
Yes, as the title of this paper says ‘The Transient Limitations of Man,' are indeed transient because, in time, and inevitably, knowledge shall dawn on man, and with this eventual lifting of the cloak of ignorance off him, he shall then begin to cherish and treasure the very things that he today bans and treats as poisonous or dangerous.
Indeed that man has limitations ought to make him humble. This realisation ought to make man less willing to exact untold punishments on fellow man under the guise of doing the right thing.
Today's wrongs will be tomorrow's rights. That this is going to happen is supported by history. History is replete with examples of such changes.
The tobacco industry is a multibillion, cutthroat one. However, in its current form it is veritably a sorry fixture that peddles danger. This industry requires urgent reforms that should be occasioned by research. Its present complacency is inimical to the wellbeing of humanity.
Nicotine gums or patches, albeit marginal, are a good effort at change. Cigarettes too can be made safe. The industry can do better!
Presently, the transient limitations of man are a veritable source of unmerited torture for many that are sanctioned and they represent a clear and dangerous barrier to human advancement.
Dear reader, begin to re-wire your understanding of things. Retain an open mind. What you presently steadfastly hang on to as the truth may indeed be a lie, a half-truth or simply false.
Nonetheless, the journey in pursuit of truth continues.
With good thinking on his part inspiring judicious usage, man, as a collective, should surely have a good life for an indefinite period of time.
Dear reader, many of the definitions and categorisations that presently exist and upon which your everyday life and understanding of your environment are based are false.
You have heard of the classification of substances into poisonous and non-poisonous ones. You have been told that there are bad and good things on earth. As an attempt at guiding people on earth, such categorisations ought to be respected and whoever came up with them should truly and sincerely be commended.
Nonetheless, the fact is, these categorisations are grossly misleading. They are not a reflection of the whole truth.
Dear reader, to stretch your mind a little, be informed that there is no such thing as a poison. This is the truth.
Granted, to say that a given substance can terminate life or kill is correct. On the other hand, to label a substance a poison is not good human practice. It is that kind of behaviour that should be discouraged. It is misleading.
Note that a given substance is a poison only because we say so not because it is. Further, take note that it is the utility, the utilisation or mal-utilisation of a given substance that makes it a poison or not. It is not that the thing is poisonous; it is its utility that makes it so.
Worth noting is that the same substance which can kill, under different circumstances, can also cause life to be preserved.
Interestingly, water too can be poisonous!
Dear reader, I want you to know that I do not smoke. I do not smoke cigarettes or anything. This is important for you might misunderstand what I am about to tell you if I do not say so.
Now listen to this. It might surprise you.
There is nothing wrong with marijuana. In addition, there is nothing wrong with tobacco. This, dear reader, is the immutable truth. Think about it for a while.
That the two plants form part of the whole gamut of the resources that earth is replete with is not at all in dispute.
You see, way before marijuana was banned, in primeval times, it was beneficially being used in the everyday lives of the people that had access to it then. Whether they used it properly or not is a moot point.
The banning of the smoking of marijuana by many countries is understandable. One empathises with the authorities behind these bans because their action, though not fully informed by the whole truth, is indeed cautionary. The authorities behind these bans really mean well, you see.
Nonetheless, these bans are a veritable reflection of our limitations as people. Banning the use or smoking of marijuana is an action founded on fear inspired by ignorance. Though such action is supposed to protect people it does not, in the long run, advance human development and neither does it help humanity in the end. Such bans have only phasal benefits.
Banning marijuana is not sustainable. Arresting those that possess or smoke it is yet another of those fallacious and ridiculous acts of man. It clearly depicts the folly of law; the criminalisation of the innocent.
You see, in the coming years, growing marijuana, possession of marijuana or smoking it will not be a crime. This development is indeed coming. It is inevitable. The inevitability of this development is ensured by the inevitability of enlightenment.
Similarly, banning tobacco smoking is understandable. Nonetheless, it is still only a pathetic attempt at protecting people. It too, is neither practicable nor sustainable for there is indeed nothing wrong with tobacco. Tobacco is useful.
Granted, the current use of tobacco leads to the development of many diseases but that is not the same as saying that tobacco causes disease or that it is bad. Tobacco itself, you see, does not cause disease. It is the use, or rather misuse or abuse, of tobacco that does that.
It might shock you, dear reader, that the current way of consuming tobacco, via cigarettes such as Guards, Peter Stuyvesant or Consulate is wrong. Present cigarettes are only a poor approximation of what ought to be the right way to consume tobacco but which way has not yet been invented or discovered.
What ought to happen is that tobacco smoking needs to be made safe. Similarly, marijuana processed in the right way can be of immense value to human health.
The banning of the smoking of tobacco or marijuana if it was intended to lead to the manufacture of better products or use would be welcome but it does not presently do that. In so far as it serves the interests of public health, it is welcome but note that a ban that does not lead to heightened research aimed at finding better ways of using tobacco or marijuana lamentably fails to advance the case for human development.
Truly, such a ban shall repeatedly be flouted.
Truth be told, in future, people will be able to use tobacco without developing cancer or hypertension in the process. It might even be used for the reversal of these conditions.
For example, that tobacco smoking today predisposes to the development of many diseases is a clear reflection of the limitations of man. It simply means that man has not yet understood the full value intrinsic to the tobacco leaf. The value of tobacco to his wellbeing is yet to be fully harnessed by man.
Fact: Tobacco is a valuable resource for the well being of humanity.
Fact: Marijuana is a valuable resource for the wellbeing of humanity.
It is the un-informed or poor utilisation of earth's substances which gives rise to the classifications of these substances into poisonous ones and non-poisonous ones, lethal and non-lethal ones.
The truth is that any substance that is said to be poisonous, at the right dose or taken in the right quantities and in the right way, that same substance, could save lives.
Further, note that substances that enhance human life can be taken through the skin, mouth, lungs, anally and so on.
Yes, as the title of this paper says ‘The Transient Limitations of Man,' are indeed transient because, in time, and inevitably, knowledge shall dawn on man, and with this eventual lifting of the cloak of ignorance off him, he shall then begin to cherish and treasure the very things that he today bans and treats as poisonous or dangerous.
Indeed that man has limitations ought to make him humble. This realisation ought to make man less willing to exact untold punishments on fellow man under the guise of doing the right thing.
Today's wrongs will be tomorrow's rights. That this is going to happen is supported by history. History is replete with examples of such changes.
The tobacco industry is a multibillion, cutthroat one. However, in its current form it is veritably a sorry fixture that peddles danger. This industry requires urgent reforms that should be occasioned by research. Its present complacency is inimical to the wellbeing of humanity.
Nicotine gums or patches, albeit marginal, are a good effort at change. Cigarettes too can be made safe. The industry can do better!
Presently, the transient limitations of man are a veritable source of unmerited torture for many that are sanctioned and they represent a clear and dangerous barrier to human advancement.
Dear reader, begin to re-wire your understanding of things. Retain an open mind. What you presently steadfastly hang on to as the truth may indeed be a lie, a half-truth or simply false.
Nonetheless, the journey in pursuit of truth continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)