Thoyd Loki Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 If you've ever worked in a drug rehab your opinions may differ. Getting up close with the afflicted can change your perspective too. I could go into the many different ways a person can become addicted but the one that contradicts your "an attempt to obliterate one's consciousness" is the biological predisposition towards certain drugs. Studies have shown attention deficit people having a strong tendancy towrds stimulants. There are lots of other genetic studies showing how people's brain chemistry leads them towards drugs. Drug addiction is just a plain sickness that sad to say usually gets treated with more drugs. Pure determinism. And what, do you think, accounts for people having "attention deficit disorder"? They have a strong tendency to stimulants you say, what accounts for their tendency to be habitually out of focus? I gave up alcohol awhile back (and yes, I was a mighty fine guzzler). You know how? I decided to. End of story. Am I ever going to slip. No. Why not? I have decided I'm not going to do that. So easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I gave up alcohol awhile back (and yes, I was a mighty fine guzzler). You know how? I decided to. End of story. Am I ever going to slip. No. Why not? I have decided I'm not going to do that. So easy. This is how I gave up smoking four years ago. Just decide to stop, and then do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Durande Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Attention deficit disorder is not a real medical condition. It is invented by non-scientists and those who work for the benefit of pharmecutical companies. People have free will. Predispositions like you mention are deterministic fallacies. To illustrate, ask yourself: What drugs did cavmens' brain chemistries lead them to? And what, god forbid, happened when those cavemen weren't able to locate crystal meth in their surroundings. I guess they just had to go without and lead normal lives. You may as well say that some are predisposed toward crime based upon brain chemistry. -Or any other behavior that people need excuses for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I never said a thing about ecstasy and cocaine. No you didn’t, but if I had said ‘caffeine and alcohol’ instead, the rest of my post could have remained the same. However the drugs I chose make my point a lot clearer, which is why I chose them. I asked you if evolution programmed us to take drugs, you answer “Yes...” Determinism doesn’t get any better than that. Maybe I took your 'yes' to literally though. You are simply taking my words and doing the twist. If you actually look at what I have posted here you would see that I'm observing DRUGS from a 50,000 foot view and giving nothing but facts. If you want to have a rational discussion I'm all for it but first YOU must show some forum edicate. If you cannot acknowledge the biological facts I've posted then go back to school. The pleasure pain centers of the brain came way before any man made drug was produced, so put away your magnifying glass on the subject and try to look at things from distance.Rubbish. While I'm at it I'd like to inform you that religion is in a lot of ways a drug. So spouting off links and refering me to passages of Rand only makes me feel you are no different than a fundie knocking on my door.Objectivism is not a religion, and religion is not a drug. Btw: I sent you one link to one passage, referring you only to one paragraph. I’m not sure how this qualifies as “spouting off links and referring [you] to passages” – the English language has a singular text for such occasions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I think in a very important sense -- in the context of this discussion -- drugs are metaphysically given. It is true that drugs are produced. This has consequences in politics such as whether they should be regulated, and whether people should trade value to get them. But the context of a decision about whether or not to use a particular drug at a particular time is different. Questions about what one should do (to oneself) fall under ethics. I think the primary ethical question in this case is what effect the drug will have. The effect of a given drug on your body and consciousness is metaphysically given. It is a legitimate question… I think what you are getting at is the nature of the drug. The nature of Advil is metaphysically given – its natural properties are not a matter of choice, they are what they are and could not have been otherwise. However Advil was created by choice, so it requires a moral evaluation. If you say Advil is good, you are judging the choices made to create it and setting your personal terms for using it. Basically though it is a matter of not unconditionally accepting anything that is the product of a choice – saying Advil just is brushes over the fact that it didn’t have to be, aka it was a matter of choice. So there is a fundamentally different way to approach things that are metaphysically given and things that aren’t, the former must be accepted unconditionally (including the nature of nature) – the later must be judged (which requires a method of judging, context, etcetera). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I stand corrected, yes cigs would be uno. Drink would be 2nd. I don't remember the statistics exactly, but alcohal/driving deaths FAR outnumber smoking-related the last time I checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 While I'm at it I'd like to inform you that religion is in a lot of ways a drug. So spouting off links and refering me to passages of Rand only makes me feel you are no different than a fundie knocking on my door. Well, actually, it is you who is knocking on his door. This is a forum dedicated to the philosophy of Objectivism, and if citing its originator, Ayn Rand, makes you "feel" that you are dealing with a fundamentalist religion, then please also feel free to stop knocking on our door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I don't remember the statistics exactly, but alcohal/driving deaths FAR outnumber smoking-related the last time I checked. Then you must have last checked some time before Henry Ford developed the Model T. The statistics are not even close. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 17,013 deaths were attributed to alcohol related automobile accidents in 2003. And, according to a 2004 report by the Center for Disease Control, there were 442,398 smoking-related deaths. Lung cancer alone accounted for 124,813 deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Then you must have last checked some time before Henry Ford developed the Model T. The statistics are not even close. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 17,013 deaths were attributed to alcohol related automobile accidents in 2003. And, according to a 2004 report by the Center for Disease Control, there were 442,398 smoking-related deaths. Lung cancer alone accounted for 124,813 deaths. WHOA! I stand corrected! I had no idea. I thought that was just those "truth" people doing the statistic-distort dance. I am to assume that those 124,813 are all smokers who died of lung cancer and that it is a reasonable trace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I am to assume that those 124,813 are all smokers who died of lung cancer and that it is a reasonable trace? Since you had mentioned that you had looked at the statistics, I was just providing the currently available statistics to contrast with your own. As to the reasonableness of the statistics: I think there is reason to question smoking-related deaths, but the statistics are so overwhelming as compared with alcohol-related driving deaths, that even a more reasonable study would not change the relative result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Yeah, I guess I would have to agree with that. I was only asking as a point of curiousity, not as a challenge to the basic point you were making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshJaffe Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 (Discussing the metaphysically given vs. the man-made, in the context of using drugs.) ... However Advil was created by choice, so it requires a moral evaluation. If you say Advil is good, you are judging the choices made to create it and setting your personal terms for using it. ... GoodOrigamiMan, for the most part I agree with what you are arguing. But the judgement of the producer of the drug is based on the question: * who would choose to design or produce a drug of this nature? It is a judgement of a decision (man-made) in the context of the metaphysically given (the drug's nature). I think that even a judgement of the drug's producer rests primarily on the metaphysically given nature of the drug. (It also rests on what steps the producer took to identify the metaphysically given.) However, a judgement of the good is done 1. by an evaluator 2. in the context of a beneficiary. If I (the evaluator) have reason to believe that a drug would help me (the beneficiary) treat a particular symptom, then it would be OK for me to say it is good. This context would be implied in my statement. I am not sure that evaluating the producer is necessary for me to declare a drug good. Objectivist ethics (as I believe you know) is based on conditional imperatives, not on duty. The "requirement" to morally evaluate other people's actions is rooted in what effect my action will have on my life plus my enjoyment of life. E.g. "if I want to live and enjoy life I should speak up in support of people who produce things of value for my life." If I find a drug to be bad (harmful in all of its uses), however, it would in many cases advance my life and enjoyment of life to at least withold my support from those who produce it. But ask yourself what message is most important to convey: * that drug X is bad for you (an evaluation of the metaphysically given) or * that the person who invented or produces drug X is bad (man-made) A drug like LSD disrupts consciousness and harms the mind. It is bad. I will tell my kid not to use it. I am not sure what the motives of the chemist who researched it were. I am not a chemist, and I don't see much benefit to me in denouncing that chemist. It doesn't seem that important to me. I definitely don't feel a requirement to go out and find out the facts I would need to know to make my judgement. Now consider psychadelic mushrooms. Shrooms disrupt consciousness, harm the mind and can destroy the liver. They are bad. They are metaphysically given in the sense that they grow naturally in the wild. These drugs are different in that one is man-made, the other grows in the wild. But the primary consideration when I evaluate either for personal use stems from the metaphysically given: what is the nature of the drug and what will its effect upon me be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Damn I was just getting ready to make fun of SmallDaddySexMachine, but he left already. I guess a pretty sheep came over by the barn, and, well.. who can resist the temptation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_stranger Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I could go into the many different ways a person can become addicted but the one that contradicts your "an attempt to obliterate one's consciousness" is the biological predisposition towards certain drugs. I would argue that "biological predisposition" to certain drugs will not make one seek out that drug in a vacuum, but rather will help them determine their "drug of choice" once they are committed to substance abuse and evasion. If one is going to use and abuse drugs, one will naturally seek the one that makes one feel the best and provides the most "bang for the buck." This process is almost automatic, just like learning one's favorite foods. d_s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Since you had mentioned that you had looked at the statistics, I was just providing the currently available statistics to contrast with your own. As to the reasonableness of the statistics: I think there is reason to question smoking-related deaths, but the statistics are so overwhelming as compared with alcohol-related driving deaths, that even a more reasonable study would not change the relative result. Stephen, I agree with you that the proportion of deaths between each substance is very different according to the statistics. You are right to be concerned about the validity of the statistics. Allow me to talk about the data on second hand smoking for a bit: There used to be this commercial that was aired on tv (sponsored by: "The Truth") that said up to thousands of people die of second hand smoke per year. Some people say 50,000 Americans die from it per year. This study was released a few years ago. It studied thousands of Californians to see if second hand smoke increased mortality, and found no casual link. Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. There is an issue with that study, in that people could have quit smoking since they were last interviewed, which was brought up before by the anti-smoking groups. However more studies point in the same direction: There is the World Health Organization's study found no statistical link between second hand smoke and cancer. It has only been the EPA that has said second hand smoke can cause an increase in cancer risk. What is my point? That some of the data in this area is so contrasted because of political bias that it is hard to make an accurate judgement. Some people say 50,000 American deaths from second hand smoke, some people say it's likely zero. The difference is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexigogue Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Megan Robinson writes: No one is advocating becoming a wastoid or stoner. Certainly I'm not. As long as you employ some intelligence or planning, drugs are not a problem in life. Indeed, life is rather empty without them. Where's the fun or visceral celebration? Everyone also needs to bear in mind here that such recreational substances as coke and weed take effect and wear off relatively quickly with few or no ill effects. They aren't like alcohol. And they don't have long-term consequences like cigarettes. I drink coffee for utilitarian reasons. It helps me wake up and gives me mental acuity. Of course cocaine could make you VERY alert and mentally acute. PRRRRPRPATHAPITA CAPACHINO!!!! ahem. I mean. . . Sometimes the line between pleasure and utility blurs. Like truck drivers taking speed so that they don't fall asleep or Brett Favre getting accidently hooked on painkillers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nullifidian Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 While I'm at it I'd like to inform you that religion is in a lot of ways a drug. So spouting off links and refering me to passages of Rand only makes me feel you are no different than a fundie knocking on my door. Well, actually, it is you who is knocking on his door. This is a forum dedicated to the philosophy of Objectivism, and if citing its originator, Ayn Rand, makes you "feel" that you are dealing with a fundamentalist religion, then please also feel free to stop knocking on our door. You all can rest assured I will knock no more. I found my own objective reality through the time honored system of science and its methods of obtaining truth. I did not just read a few books and think, gee this is a great way live my life. I came here thinking I would find people who respected science, logic, and the rational mind that comes from having an objective reality. All I have found is bigotry, prejudice, and closed minds and this is all from just one forum thread. The elitist attitude I've received from this board is frightning and THAT is why I am leaving never to return. I am not mad or angry just very very disappointed and sad that I did not find a group of people who have a background in science and the rationality that it can bring a person. goodbye, and have fun flaming me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 goodbye.... This thread makes me think of moths to the flame. Speaking of statistics… two for two people who couldn’t manage using quotes have left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 I came here thinking I would find people who respected science, logic, and the rational mind ... I did not find a group of people who have a background in science and the rationality that it can bring a person. Just two things. First, you have it backwards: Science does not "bring" rationality to a person, but rather those who are rational are deserving and well-equipped for the study of science. Second, I find it a bit ironic that for someone seeking science you chose for discussion a thread devoted to drugs. We do have a separate science forum here, on which we have discussed, at varying levels, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, the nature of consciousness, etc. Why did you not seek what you wanted there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Some people say 50,000 American deaths from second hand smoke, some people say it's likely zero. The difference is amazing. Yes, it is quite amazing, and rather sad that what should be a purely scientific issue has become so politicized. But the fatality statistics we were taliking about earlier were not for second hand smoke, but rather for those who are confirmed smokers themselves. Although, as I mentioned, I think that even there, there is a lot of room for criticism, but there remains sufficient evidence for the risk and the consequences for moderate to heavy smokers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Well, actually, it is you who is knocking on his door. This is a forum dedicated to the philosophy of Objectivism, and if citing its originator, Ayn Rand, makes you "feel" that you are dealing with a fundamentalist religion, then please also feel free to stop knocking on our door. You all can rest assured I will knock no more. I found my own objective reality through the time honored system of science and its methods of obtaining truth. I did not just read a few books and think, gee this is a great way live my life. I came here thinking I would find people who respected science, logic, and the rational mind that comes from having an objective reality. All I have found is bigotry, prejudice, and closed minds and this is all from just one forum thread. The elitist attitude I've received from this board is frightning and THAT is why I am leaving never to return. I am not mad or angry just very very disappointed and sad that I did not find a group of people who have a background in science and the rationality that it can bring a person. goodbye, and have fun flaming me.... Who the hell are these people that guys like this keep running into? What a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Oops, I screwed up on using quotes. Guess I'm going to have to get defensive now and leave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Oops, I screwed up on using quotes. Guess I'm going to have to get defensive now and leave! It is either that or you’ll ruin my thesis of: Quote Competence and Life Competence – the downfall of HTML syntax and society. As Howard Roark said... "There is no substitute for competence." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 I think that even a judgement of the drug's producer rests primarily on the metaphysically given nature of the drug. (It also rests on what steps the producer took to identify the metaphysically given.) This is correct… another way of saying it would be: the standard for judgment is the metaphysically given. I am not arguing that the producer needs to be judged independently in order to appraise value to a drug – rather appraising the drug is also an appraisal of the producer. It is recognition that the drug did not create itself; rather that it involved the virtues of people. This would be the case for Advil. However, in the case of a drug like cocaine being produced by street chemists with the intent on selling it to LittleMachine, the situation is a little different. If someone tries to sell you cocaine your reaction shouldn’t be: “Oh my! There is some cocaine. It exists and I will avoid it because of it’s dangerous natural properties.” As opposed to a different response along the lines of, “This is cocaine was created to be sold to people like me – to whom it has no value whatsoever... in fact if I use this it will hurt me - ergo the person trying to sell it to me is lying (trying to pass it off as a value) and immoral, which goes for the person who produced it too, note to self: this cocaine is the result of immoral actions – if you can, do a little more than shrug and accept it: it stands against your values.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Publius Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 With a signature like I have, you know I am going to weigh in on this one. I have just finished reading this thread and am going to take some time to think first. However, I will present a couple of preliminary comments. Avatars, signatures, and photographs in user profiles serve as an art venue where we advertise ourselves. Whenever I join a new forum, one of the first things I do is check user profiles. This I did here. One name sent up a red flag: BigDaddySexMachine. A name like BigDaddySexMachine on a forum about Objectivism? I would expect to see a name like BigDaddySexMachine in an AOL chat room but not in a forum about Objectivism. Upon looking at his signature, I read this: If it's not written in blood -- why bother to write it at all?" --Friedrich Nietzsche. For those who are not aware, Ayn Rand considered Nietzsche to be an adversary and debunked him on several occasions. Red flag number two: A quote from Nietzsche in a signature in a user profile in a forum about Objectivism. Then I looked at his avatar: An explosive cartoon bubble saying “POW!” By itself, this may be interpreted any number of ways. However, coupled with BigDaddySexMachine, and “If it's not written in blood -- why bother to write it at all?" --Friedrich Nietzsche, it takes on a particularly sinister meaning; perhaps that of physical persuasion. As I was reading this thread, BigDaddySexMachine confirmed everything that I suspected from reading his User Profile. I was looking forward to pointing this out to him directly but he bailed off the thread early on. Then, as I continued to read the thread, Nullifidan’s name caught my attention as being somewhat nihilistic. His avatar is an analog meter pegged to zero, or perhaps to the negative. His signature seems acceptable. However, as I sought further information from Nullifidian, HE bailed off the thread. He is another that I was looking forward to debating. Oh well… IIIIIIIIIIIIII’ll be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.