I think you misattribute this position to Michael - he argues the opposite, if I understand him correctly.
A larger point that most people seem to miss is that actual danger itself does not mean much - it is the perception of danger that matters. Far more people die form car accidents than from plane crashes - yet more people are afraid of flying than of driving. Likewise with "lega'" and "illegal" drugs.
The crux of the debate is not the danger itself but the perception of danger and the cultural context in which it this danger occurs. People are not afraid of driving even though they chances of dying in a car crash are considerably higher than dying in any other mode of transportation - because cars are a key part of the mainstream culture, and thus their benefits are cognitively augmented, while their costs are cognitively diminished. Ditto for "legal" drugs such as alcohol, caffeine, or cigarettes. By contrast, public transit and "illegal" drugs are seen as part of "alien culture" and their benefits are cognitively made look smaller while their cost and dangers are perceived to be larger.
It comes as no surprise that those who see themselves as dissidents or "counter-culture" would the opposite stance, and cognitively reduce the dangers of "countercultural" icons (illegal drugs, life styles, public transit, etc.) while cognitively exaggerating the dangers of "mainstream" icons (legal drugs, cars, etc.).
The same can be said about guns - the debate is not about the objects themselves abut about icons they represent. From a rational point of view, guns are potentially dangerous, but when used with proper care they are less dangerous than many everyday objects used with little car (say, cars). But the crux of the debate between pro-and anti-gun crowds is not the danger itself, but guns as cultural icons. Those who defend or attack them do not defend or attack mechanical devices, but ways of life that these devices came to symbolize.
So do not expect any rationality in cultural wars - people do not give a shit about pawns and proxies when they "cultural values" are under attack.
Wojtek
> The social conditions we have are the social conditions we have, and they
don't
> really look like changing particularly fast. If something's dangerous to
> Americans in the current American economy, then it's very dangerous to
half a
> billion people and that ought to be enough to be going on with.
>
> I suspect that it is probably "stoner propaganda" to assume that the mere
> legalisation of currently illegal drugs would bring about enough of a
social
> and economic change to make dangerous drugs undangerous (and suspect that
the
> example of alcohol confirms this), but if something's dangerous in the
here and
> now, it's dangerous. An unshielded nuclear reactor is only dangerous to
> someone without the resources to buy lead underpants.
>
> best
> dd
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk