Philosophy Now Forum

@Sir Suck

The truth is we generally live in a very anti-drug world. When big organizations like the DEA are trying to demonize substances as benign as marijuana or kratom, it speaks volumes that they may actually have a bias to pull things in this direction, despite the good it would do for our economy and all the tax benefits. I actually have reason to think they would jump on caffeine, an unregulated substance, not bred from big drug corporations, if there was ample evidence to suggest doing so.

I disagree, we live in a pro-drug world.
Here'r some of real reasons why some drugs are illegal, from Naom Chomsky:

https://chomsky.info/199804__-2/

As for pharmaceutical/prescription drugs, I think something like 1 out of 6 are on psychiatric drugs, and that's just psychiatric drugs, one class of drug among many we take.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:29 pm in some cases ought to blame, ban or restrict.

Alcohol is a far bigger menace than coffee, if you're going to go campaigning to ban things start with that.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:29 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:16 am But let me ask you this, if I were to drop a Motrin tablet on a highway and got ran over when I went to pick it up, would the fault be on Motrin?

No because that could happen with any (class of) object(s) we use, and we can't blame, ban or restrict all objects.

The point is that there's no fatality that can ever be blamed on caffeine, because the symptoms could not have been the direct force for the action that caused the death. As I linked earlier, it's not plausible to die merely from caffeine overdose.

They were an indirect driving force of something else, not unsimilar to the Motrin being an indirect driving force that lead to you getting run over. This is why we need to be careful to differentiate drug fatalities for what can be blamed on human stupidity.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:45 pm @Sir Suck

The truth is we generally live in a very anti-drug world. When big organizations like the DEA are trying to demonize substances as benign as marijuana or kratom, it speaks volumes that they may actually have a bias to pull things in this direction, despite the good it would do for our economy and all the tax benefits. I actually have reason to think they would jump on caffeine, an unregulated substance, not bred from big drug corporations, if there was ample evidence to suggest doing so.

I disagree, we live in a pro-drug world.

As far as the people who inhabit it go, maybe. Honestly, evolution has likely ingrained the desire to take drugs into us, as it's pretty apparent in other ape species. The Vervet monkeys and chimpanzees have been known to specifically steal and go after alcohol, as an example. I think religion and neo-conservatism has done a quite a hit job on this type of culture however.

But in terms of the law, it's very much the opposite case. There is far more anti-drug legislature in the world than there is drug legalization. Certainly it's the case for America since I mentioned that specifically.

As for pharmaceutical/prescription drugs, I think something like 1 out of 6 are on psychiatric drugs, and that's just psychiatric drugs, one class of drug among many we take.

Okay? How does this address my point that caffeine and 'big pharma' work in opposition to each other?

Yea it seems exceedingly difficult to inadvertently OD on caffeine barring a preexisting condition, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of other dangers.
Almost all dangers involve degrees of human incompetence, do we leave people to their own devices, let them risk their lives and/or the lives of others, or do we intervene with education, restrictions, bans?
Like anything balance is key, and then we can argue over what balance constitutes generally or particularly, but some people will take things to extremes, or suggest intervening once logically necessitates always intervening, or not intervening once logically necessitates never intervening, which's silly.

Drugs smell and taste really bad for reasons, it's natures way of telling us to FO.
Plants are natures first chemists, they produce fruit and nectar when they want to allure us, and since they can't defend themselves by fighting/flighting like we do, they produce toxins in seeds and things when they want to repel us.
The vast majority of animals, the vast majority of the time, heed the warning, but humans have cultivated the relatively milder toxins for some of their 'beneficial' or interesting properties.
Do animals in the wild consume drugs on purpose?
Occasionally perhaps they do, sometimes they get sick and die as a result, and sometimes they can handle it, but they're the exceptions to the rule, most animals avoid toxins/drugs most of the time.
And other drugs, like alcohol, come from 'fermented', or purified fruits, vegetables and seeds: an squired taste.
I'm not against all technology, drugs, especially when cultivated and/or refined, are a kind of technology, but nor am I for all technology.
It's not that I think all drugs ought to be banned, it's that I think we've gone too far with drugs, and tech in general.

If there was as much drug legalization as anti drug legislature, all drugs would be legalized, so I fail to see your point about our legislature being more anti than pro drug, I mean we're not forced to take some drugs some times, to compensate for us being forced not to take some drugs some times, if that's what you mean, at least not yet, but they are forcing many parents to vax their kids, and well, they might force you to get your kids on chemo if they have cancer, and chemo is a drug/poison.

Althou there's a fine line between recreational/medicinal, caffeine, in addition to booze and cigarettes, and big pharma go together like disease, and doctors, like fire, and firefighters, like police, and thieves, like terror, and the so called 'war on terrorism'.
Coffee's 'side', or negative effects are underestimated, at least by the general public, I've been arguing.
And it's not just coffee, you seem pretty pro drug in general.
I'm sure coffee's (in)directly causing a lot of psychiatric disorders, especially in immoderate and/or long term use, and millions of people are abusing it.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:32 am Drugs taste and smell really bad for reasons, it's natures way of telling us to FO.

I think that you are using a very incorrect and fallacious application derived from many evolutionary phychologists. Saying that 'drugs taste icky' is a brush stroke far too big to begin with, but making an intuitive guess why something evolved in a certain way is not hard science. Evolutionary psychology is not a field that's taken too seriously for this reason.

What I did, was claim that it's probably ingrained in our psychology based on the evidence that it is in our relatives. Namely, the vervet monkeys and chimps.

he vast majority of animals, the vast majority of the time, heed the warning, but humans have sought the milder toxins out for some of their 'beneficial' or interesting properties.
Do animals in the wild consume drugs on purpose?
Occasionally perhaps they do, sometimes they get sick and die as a result, and sometimes they can handle it, but they're the exceptions to the rule, most animals avoid drugs/toxins most of the time.

Most animals yes, but when looking at our closest relatives which evolved around areas where ethanol is present, we find that they actively seek after it. We know it wasn't a desire brought on by man-made alcohol, because they even go after the wine created in fermented tree sap.

If there was as much drug legalization as anti drug legislature, drugs would be legalized, so I fail to see your point.

So you don't see how the fact that illicit drug usage carries such harsh penalties in the majority of countries reinforces my point that our legislature is very anti-drug? I meant when considering policies from all around the world, there are only a handful of countries that have decriminalized all drugs. Meaning, even in places like Portugual and Netherlands, drugs were once illegal. This speaks volumes.

I don't think I'm going this discussion with you for much longer. If you don't see how at least, legislature around the world tends to be lean very anti-drug, you're just willingfully blind, or don't know anything of foreign affairs. I believe you're filling in details as we go along the conversation, about things you don't really have that much understanding in. I know this phrase tends to be overused in online debate, but I genuinely believe you're making shit up.

Althou there's a fine line between recreational/medicinal, caffeine, in addition to booze and cigarettes, and big pharma go together like disease, and doctors, like fire, and firefighters, like police, and thieves, like terror, and the so called 'war on terrorism'.
Coffee's 'side', or negative effects are underestimated, at least by the general public, I've been arguing.
And it's not just coffee, you seem pretty pro drug in general.
I'm sure coffee's (in)directly causing a lot of psychiatric disorders, especially in immoderate and/or long term use, and millions of people are abusing it.

No, they really don't go together. Entirely separate companies with no relation to each other, and you're an extremely lazy debater who never wants to do what amounts to actual research, so you resort to a conspiracy in order to fill in the contradictions. A conspiracy which you, ironically, don't even have any reason to believe other than to appease your other beliefs.

I wouldn't call myself pro-drug, I'm just not an ideologue who make a judgement call assessed from black and white thinking. Some drugs are bad for many people, some are good for certain people, and even within those circumstances there's nuance and a caveat where it's not really my call to decide what someone should do with their own body.

I'm sure coffee is also helping a lot of psychiatric disorders.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:32 am Yea it seems exceedingly difficult to inadvertently OD on caffeine barring a preexisting condition, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of other dangers.
Almost all dangers involve degrees of human incompetence, do we leave people to their own devices, let them risk their lives and/or the lives of others, or do we intervene with education, restrictions, bans?
Like anything balance is key, and then we can argue over what balance constitutes generally or particularly, but some people will take things to extremes, or suggest intervening once logically necessitates always intervening, or not intervening once logically necessitates never intervening, which's silly.

Well yes, however the only time someone ever dies while on caffeine it's almost purely from human incompetence.

Your concern of people taking too much caffeine is still really dumb and unfounded. I've known some people who get panic attacks if they consume too much of it, but nothing that amounts to physical damage to himself or anyone else. It sure as hell has no connection to any sort of rise in car accidents. As the study I linked suggested, it may even decline it.

If there was as much drug legalization as anti drug legislature, all drugs would be legalized, so I fail to see your point about our legislature being more anti than pro drug, I mean we're not forced to take some drugs some times, to compensate for us being forced not to take some drugs some times, if that's what you mean, at least not yet, but they are forcing many parents to vax their kids, and well, they might force you to get your kids on chemo if they have cancer, and chemo is a drug/poison.

I find the edit you made to this comment quite humorous. Because usually an edit is meant to expound on the point that was initially claimed, not to go off on a tangent that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what the other person is even talking about. No, I don't think the other side of what I was talking about is forcing everyone to take drugs.

I'm relieved to know that you wear your ignorance on your sleeve though, proud to clearly reveal that you're a crazy anti-vaxxer as well. Although somehow I sort of already assumed. Funny how someone can make such an assessment on someone based on another unrelated belief, like that.

I'll make a couple more points and then I think we're about done here.

1. Yes they do go together, recreational drugs, like coffee, make people sick, more than people think, and medicinal drugs treat the symptoms without addressing the root cause.

2. Drug companies/research are funded with our tax dollars (in some cases), we're extremely pro-drug, never have we been more pro-drug in the history of man, and also if you think prescription/recreational drugs are manufactured exclusively for medicinal purposes, *laughs.

If you read the Noam Chomsky link, you would've seen some of the real reasons why the government is criminalizing some drugs, and why the war on drugs isn't designed to be won.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:49 am 1. Yes they do go together, recreational drugs, like coffee, make people sick, more than people think, and medicinal drugs treat the symptoms without addressing the root cause.

I guess that's why the FDA, which is funded by the pharmaceutical companies, actively attempts to pull people away from things like energy drinks, smoking and illicit drug use, even going so far to make laws against them.

But hey, the highly intelligent lizard people who run the Illuminati in washington just visited me, and they told me that I'm right and you're wrong, so I guess we can leave it at that; This is your level of intellectual prowess right now. Grand machination of conspiracy and collusion, no evidence or demonstration to back it up.

2. Drugs companies/research are funded with our tax dollars, we're extremely pro-drug, never have we been more pro-drug in history, and also if you think prescription/recreational drugs are manufactured exclusively for medicinal purposes, *laughs.

And yet possessing the vast majority of drugs will send someone to prison. We are pro-drug, for the very few drugs that can pass rigorous testing and intend to address medical conditions, and if you have a certified prescription to have that drug. Even then we only allow you to have a certain amount of the stuff. Far even from the most capitalistic gains.

They are manufactured strictly for a medicinal purpose, they don't always end up in the hands of those with that purpose. And the fact that certain drugs are opened up for depression and anxiety, well sometimes recreational use kind of overlaps.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:55 am If you read the Noam Chomsky link, you would've seen some of the real reasons why the government is criminalizing some drugs, and why the war on drugs isn't designed to be won.

I'm not the biggest fan of Noam Chomsky, so I don't really care what he has to say. Give me the gist of it and I'll tell you if I agree with it.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:08 am

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:55 am If you read the Noam Chomsky link, you would've seen some of the real reasons why the government is criminalizing some drugs, and why the war on drugs isn't designed to be won.

I'm not the biggest fan of Noam Chomsky, so I don't really care what he has to say. Give me the gist of it and I'll tell you if I agree with it.

I can't be bothered, retard, you go read it with the rose colored glasses.

You don't care for Noam Chomsky cause you're a spineless coward who can't concede there's been good, scholarly work proving our institutions are indeed, very corrupt.

Retard, it's not black/white, I know you struggle to think outside binaries, the powers that be kept the dirt on sugar, tobacco and such hidden for as long as they could, and now they're doing the same with coffee.
It's not that our institutions never serve us, it's that they're very flawed, retard.

I don't doubt collusion has ever happened, I just don't think it's happening between companies that manufacture caffeine containing products, and the pharmaceutical industry - which is run by the FDA - who actively discourage what they consider 'riskier' caffeine usage like energy drinks.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:15 amI can't be bothered, retard ... You don't care for Noam Chomsky cause you're a spineless coward ... Retard, it's not black/white ... it's that they're very flawed, retard

Well, since you've decided to reduce our conversation to such a sad state of exchanging playground level insults, I think it's time for me to be the bigger man and just walk away.

Maybe I'll come back if I feel the need to add something relevant.