Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:This is not the world I want my grandchildren to grow up into.

One reason why I don't want children at all. The world is too messed up.

I disagree, Gary. There is much to find fault with in the modern world but as I reach my twilight time I know for certain that the world I will exit will be a better one than the world I was born into. Sometimes we just need to step back and take a deeper time view to realise that this is so.

I don't know. Between things like global warming, wars and all the political scandals, it's very depressing.

Gary Childress wrote:[
I don't know. Between things like global warming, wars and all the political scandals, it's very depressing.

Not really. I see it as just another challenge for the next generation. One that I have no doubt that they will rise to with cheerfulness.

It is nothing to the looming threat of world wide nuclear war and overkill that I grew up with.

As a wise man once said " Life is trouble, only death is not".

A_Seagull wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:[
I don't know. Between things like global warming, wars and all the political scandals, it's very depressing.

Not really. I see it as just another challenge for the next generation. One that I have no doubt that they will rise to with cheerfulness.

It is nothing to the looming threat of world wide nuclear war and overkill that I grew up with.

As a wise man once said " Life is trouble, only death is not".

People don't seem to be rising to those challenges now. What makes you think the next generation will be any different. I grew up in the tail end of the cold war and it was very difficult to be optimistic then. With the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons it's hard to imagine that we won't find ourselves in such scenarios at some point in the future as well. I also forgot to mention overpopulation.

There is also a wise saying from the Ancient Greeks (paraphrased), "better to have never been born or to die young."

Philosophy Now wrote:Rob Lovering considers some of the arguments, and what they amount to.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/113/On ... l_Drug_Use

All 'recreational drugs' produce some ill effects. They alter consciousness, produce paranoia, stupefy, incapacitate or reduce motor skills and reaction time. Many are addicting. Most produce brain damage of some sort. Certain classes of drugs are extremely dangerous because their purity and composition are not guaranteed. Almost all such drugs endanger others to some extent.

Melchior wrote:

Philosophy Now wrote:Rob Lovering considers some of the arguments, and what they amount to.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/113/On ... l_Drug_Use

All 'recreational drugs' produce some ill effects. They alter consciousness, produce paranoia, stupefy, incapacitate or reduce motor skills and reaction time. Many are addicting. Most produce brain damage of some sort. Certain classes of drugs are extremely dangerous because their purity and composition are not guaranteed. Almost all such drugs endanger others to some extent.

I suppose I may agree with the above. At least it seems to correspond with what I have heard about so called "recreational drugs" in general. I've never used any drugs which are usually referred to as "recreational" (other than perhaps alcohol or caffeine, if they are to be included) so it's difficult for me to say for sure.

I would think that dosage also plays a role in how "ill" the effects of a "recreational drug" might be. Relatively mild doses of some "recreational drugs" may be ok, depending upon the drug and the person.

Gary Childress wrote:I would think that dosage also plays a role in how "ill" the effects of a "recreational drug" might be. Relatively mild doses of some "recreational drugs" may be ok, depending upon the drug and the person.

You are speculating. Most of the worst, also most popular drugs (stimulants and narcotics) require increasing dosages to achieve the same effect because of the development of tolerance. Again, shut up if you don't know what you are talking about, which is obviously the case here. Your ignorance is vast and comprehensive.

https://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts-detai ... d-to-drugs

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ ... -addiction

Melchior wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I would think that dosage also plays a role in how "ill" the effects of a "recreational drug" might be. Relatively mild doses of some "recreational drugs" may be ok, depending upon the drug and the person.

You are speculating. Most of the worst drugs (stimulants and narcotics) require increasing dosages to achieve the same effect because of the development of tolerance. Again, shut up if you don't know what you are talking about, which is obviously the case here. Your ignorance is vast and comprehensive.

So I gather you must believe:

1. Dosage does NOT play a role in the "ill" effects of a "recreational drug".

And/or

2. Relatively mild doses of some "recreational drugs" are NOT ok, depending upon drug and the person.

Which is false, #1, #2 or both?

Is marijuana a seriously bad drug?

EDIT: What about alcohol or caffeine?

And what about the criminalization of drug use? Are you in favor of that?

Gary Childress wrote:

Melchior wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I would think that dosage also plays a role in how "ill" the effects of a "recreational drug" might be. Relatively mild doses of some "recreational drugs" may be ok, depending upon the drug and the person.

You are speculating. Most of the worst drugs (stimulants and narcotics) require increasing dosages to achieve the same effect because of the development of tolerance. Again, shut up if you don't know what you are talking about, which is obviously the case here. Your ignorance is vast and comprehensive.

So I gather you must believe:

1. Dosage does NOT play a role in the "ill" effects of a "recreational drug".

See the earlier posts about the additive power of cocaine.....

http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/cocaine.htm

Melchior wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Melchior wrote:You are speculating. Most of the worst drugs (stimulants and narcotics) require increasing dosages to achieve the same effect because of the development of tolerance. Again, shut up if you don't know what you are talking about, which is obviously the case here. Your ignorance is vast and comprehensive.

So I gather you must believe:

1. Dosage does NOT play a role in the "ill" effects of a "recreational drug".

See the earlier posts about the additive power of cocaine.....

http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/cocaine.htm

I'm told by Hobbes' that s/he didn't/doesn't have such problems with the addictiveness of cocaine. Apparently it seems to depend to some degree on the person as I stated.

And does that apply to ALL "recreational drugs"? As I say relatively mild doses of "SOME" recreational drugs may be ok. Is a relatively mild dose of marijuana a serious threat to a person either in addictiveness or damage to one's psyche? From what I've heard; people I've talked to, it isn't.

Gary Childress wrote:

I'm told by Hobbes' that s/he didn't/doesn't have such problems with the addictiveness of cocaine. Apparently it seems to depend to some degree on the person as I stated.

And does that apply to ALL "recreational drugs"? As I say relatively mild doses of "SOME" recreational drugs may be ok. Is a relatively mild dose of marijuana a serious threat to a person either in addictiveness or damage to one's psyche? From what I've heard; people I've talked to, it isn't.

Even weed causes mental clouding. Have you ever talked to an adult who has used mj for decades? Every 'recreational drug' has some deleterious effect. Many are derived from plants which developed these chemicals as defenses by natural selection.

Melchior wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

I'm told by Hobbes' that s/he didn't/doesn't have such problems with the addictiveness of cocaine. Apparently it seems to depend to some degree on the person as I stated.

And does that apply to ALL "recreational drugs"? As I say relatively mild doses of "SOME" recreational drugs may be ok. Is a relatively mild dose of marijuana a serious threat to a person either in addictiveness or damage to one's psyche? From what I've heard; people I've talked to, it isn't.

Even weed causes mental clouding. Have you ever talked to an adult who has used mj for decades? Every 'recreational drug' has some deleterious effect. Many are derived from plants which developed these chemicals as defenses by natural selection.

Hmm. You're probably right. Drugs are "bad news" pretty much across the board. Many serious prescription drugs are pretty debilitating too. I've taken a few of them in my lifetime. One of my doctors commented that I was on enough to tranquilize an elephant. I'm generally pretty despondent these days. Not sure if it's the drugs or what are called "negative symptoms" of schizophrenia. I used to be pretty sharp. I did pretty well in philosophy in college. I remember a day in logic class when the teacher gave us a problem to solve. When he put his solution on the board I raised my hand and gave him mine and he was sort of taken back. Said it was even more "elegant" than what the book had given him. But all that changed after I was first hospitalized...forever...