What would a world be like with no drug regulation whatsoever? [Archive]

davefoc

29th May 2005, 01:31 PM

29th May 2005, 02:17 PM

Antibiotic resistance. End of story.

Donks

29th May 2005, 02:47 PM

Hmm, there seems to be a little misconception about Mexico. Drugs are regulated up the wazoo. I'll let ShaneK tell you how the market deals with overregulation. There are 6 classes:
1) Prescription drugs which can only be sold with special prescription issued by the Department of Health.
2) Prescription drugs for which the prescription can only be filled once.
3) Prescription drugs for which the prescription can be filled 3 times.
4) Prescription drugs for which the prescription can be filled as many times as the doctor considers necessary.
5) OTC drugs to be sold only in farmacies.
6) OTC drugs to be sold in any establishment.

Then there are a couple of classifiations for drugs. First up, Narcotics. Include: Cannabis, cocaine, codeine, morphine, heroine, methadone, opium, among others. These fall in the first class of regulations listed above.
The other classification is for Psychotropics, which has 5 further categories:
1) Little or no therapeutic value, and are susceptible to be abused: LSD, PCP, Mescaline, 'shrooms, others.
2) Some therapeutic value, but constitute a public health hazard: Amphetamines, cyclobarbital, methamphetamines, penthobarbital, others.
3) Therapetic value but with some health risk: Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, diazepam, others.
4) Therapeutic value, little health hazard: Barbital, cafeine, others.
5) No therapeutic value but have industrial uses. They have their own regulations.

Now, as I see it, the main (legal) difference between the US and Mexico is that many drugs that are available only by prescription in the US are OTC in Mexico. But they are still regulated.

El Greco

29th May 2005, 02:55 PM

Here pretty much everything except strong sedatives and analgesics was completely free for a long time. In practice, at least. And most drugs still can be bought freely. Antibiotic resistance became a problem and so they recently regulated the third generation cephalosporins and the newer quinolones. They also recently regulated steroids and androgens - not because there was a problem from their use but because there were massive exports since demand from other countries (especially USA) was tremendous.

A completely free drug market would first of all have serious economic implications. In Greece for example, we already feel these implications. Since drugs are so ridiculously cheap here, many wholesale drugstores export massive quantities to other countries. The result is that there are often shortages of important drugs in the Greek market. The state doesn't really know what to do since they can't restrict free commerce but they also have to ensure adequate quantities for the local market. Pharmaceutical companies also don't like this very much because they have different price policies in different countries and these uncontrolled imports and exports change their whole programming. Imagine this happening all over the world.

If sedatives and powerful analgesics were free then this would also affect the illegal drug market. I can't imagine the implications. I don't think anyone can.

Physicians and pharmacists would also be affected, and I can't imagine how. Remember, "free" drugs means that you can get them from the supermarket like a bar of chocolate. Who are you going to ask for medical advice, side-effects, interactions ? Who will be familiar with your personal medical records ? Who will show you how to use the insulin pen in order not to cause yourself a hypoglycemic coma ? I suspect accidents and deaths from drug misuse would rise significantly - not because of free drugs per se but because of less guidance and expert advice. If you don't need a prescription you may not even visit your physician if you believe that you know what you should get. Older people or people with other problems may even buy the wrong medicines. "Free" means that anyone can sell it, you don't have to get it from a pharmacist.

I have many more thoughts about special categories of drugs but these are just wild speculations. I guess I don't really know and I can't even guess.

shanek

29th May 2005, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Some people, would engage, in massive self medication and potentially suffer enormously.

And they aren't as it is?

Maybe the overuse of antibiotics would lead to massive outbreaks of drug resistant strains of bacteria that would threaten us all or maybe not as educational campaigns would significantly control the misuse of antibiotics.

Or maybe in general we'll become less reliant on antibiotics. Which is probably a good thing. Much of the problem with drug resistant strains came about through prescribed antibiotics, remember. It seems a pretty inevitable outcome.

What would happen to the recreational drug users? My own cut at this is probably they would be better off than they are today. I doubt there would be a lot more of them and those that existed wouldn't be subject to massive jail time. But maybe I'm wrong.

Drugs weren't always illegal, you know. The data available says that the addiction rate remains constant despite whatever the law says or does. That was true with alcohol, and it's true with drugs such as heroin and cocaine as well.

What about the existence of powerful drugs that are dangerous in even minute quantities?

What about the existance of Drain-O and rat poison?

As a practical matter would drug companies limit the sale of these drugs in such a way that they wouldn't be availbe for terrorist purposes? Or would society self destruct in a mass of botulism, LSD, etc poisonings?

There is a massively addictive, mind-altering drug which has a lethal dose of only ten grams. It's called "caffeine." Are you at a risk of OD-ing on it? Hardly. Because Pepsi and other sellers of caffeinated beverages are members of the voluntary standards body known as the American Beverage Association (http://www.ameribev.org/), which sets standards for safe levels of caffeine in beverages. All on their own, no government needed.

username

29th May 2005, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
This question is a little different. Suppose that the state imposed no restrictions whatsoever on the buyers and sellers of drugs. What would happen?

It is difficult to say. No regulations whatsoever would imply the FDA no longer is needed to approve a drug before it can go to market in the US. Potentially this would reduce the cost of drugs. If, however, no prescription was needed then patient-doctor communication would not occur for many drugs and individuals would be open to taking untested drugs with potentially harmful consequences. So, the ability of individuals to sue the pants off the pharmaceutical companies would probably play a part into how well drugs were tested before hitting the market.

I am not sure. I think it is possible that manufacturers would still restrict the sale of many of their drugs to people prescribed them by a physician. So maybe not much would change for many potent but esoteric drugs.

I think drugs like antibiotics would be self regulated quite well due to our knowledge of antibiotic resistance and the importance of stemming it. Legal, recreational drugs like Viagra on the other hand would likely be everpresent. Zero regulation would also likely open the market to all manner of drugs claiming to cure everything even though they didn't do anything at all much like many herbal remedies currently on the market which are outside normal drug regulations.

I believe that medicines without prescription are widely available in Mexico. Are there any studies that suggest that the population suffers as a result of this reduced government restriction of drugs?

Not that I know of.

What would happen to the recreational drug users? My own cut at this is probably they would be better off than they are today. I doubt there would be a lot more of them and those that existed wouldn't be subject to massive jail time. But maybe I'm wrong. Would all of a sudden a lot more people start snorting cocaine if it was legal and we would end up with a completely wacked out society? Does drug use among physicians who have easier access to drugs then the general population suggest anything about how the general population would respond to the legal availability of recreational drugs?

I doubt that deregulating the currently illegal drugs would have any long term impact on usage, but zero regulation implies that they can be commercialized and I think this would result in increased usage.

On the one hand we would have less dangerous recreational drugs since legal manufactures would not want the negative publicity associated with using toxic substances to cut their product with, but on the other hand commercialization would probably lead to higher usage.

What about the existence of powerful drugs that are dangerous in even minute quantities? As a practical matter would drug companies limit the sale of these drugs in such a way that they wouldn't be availbe for terrorist purposes? Or would society self destruct in a mass of botulism, LSD, etc poisonings?

Well, if we are talking about drugs where the only damage done is to the one consuming the drug I think this sort of thing can self regulate fairly well. If company A and company B both sell LSD and those who use company A's product find themselves trying to fly off the top of buildings or end up in mental wards with fried brains while company B's customers have few reported problems then folks will gravitate toward company B's product.

Are there any countries with sufficiently unregulated drug policies that could serve as a model for what might a society might be like without drug regulation?

No industrialized societies that I am aware of.

Having said all this I am not in favor of an unregulated drug market. I am in favor of changes, but not deregulation.

I would like to see high potential drugs and treatments made available prior to FDA approval as long as safeguards were in place to ensure patients were properly explained the risks and lack of FDA approval.

As an example I have a son born with heart defects. He had to wait on that thin line between life and death for 2 years while we waited for the FDA to approve a new, non surgical procedure to fix his heart. His cardiologist had been part of the FDA trials and said that this procedure was the best available and all the others were way too risky. I feel that we shouldn't have had to wait on the government to give us the OK. We understood the risks and should have been able to make our own decision.

Ranb

29th May 2005, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
.....What would happen to the recreational drug users? My own cut at this is probably they would be better off than they are today. I doubt there would be a lot more of them and those that existed wouldn't be subject to massive jail time. But maybe I'm wrong. Would all of a sudden a lot more people start snorting cocaine if it was legal and we would end up with a completely wacked out society? Does drug use among physicians who have easier access to drugs then the general population suggest anything about how the general population would respond to the legal availability of recreational drugs?

Making the recreational use of powerful drugs like heroin, ice, morphine, crack and LSD would be a big mistake. Imagine how many more people hooked on this crap would not be able to keep a job with a living wage, and then resort to crimes of violence to pay for their habit. I'm sure the jail time involved has to have something to do with some people not starting down this road to destruction.

I think comparing educated (although with inflated egos in some cases) doctors to people who just may not know how dangerous narcotics are, does not cut it.

davefoc

29th May 2005, 11:15 PM

Making the recreational use of powerful drugs like heroin, ice, morphine, crack and LSD would be a big mistake. Imagine how many more people hooked on this crap would not be able to keep a job with a living wage, and then resort to crimes of violence to pay for their habit. I'm sure the jail time involved has to have something to do with some people not starting down this road to destruction.

A slight derail here, but this kind of statement is exactly why drug legalization threads are largely useless at illuminiating the issue. Ranb has an opinion. And he has constructed a paragraph that he thinks put forth a logical argument for that opinion. Actually, it just attempts to justify an opinion by making an unsubstantiated guess that the facts support that opinion. So there's a circular nature to his argument. i.e. My opinion is supported by the facts and my guess as to what the facts are is based on my opinion.

It seems to me the key issue here is "are the enormous costs of enforcing the recreational drug prohibitions justified by the reduction in the number of disfunctional drug users that the regulations produce".

Shanek thinks that not only don't the drug prohibitions reduce the number of disfunctional drug users but they might actually increase it. He bases this argument largely on the US experience with alcohol prohibition and the fact that drugs were once unregulated and society survived. Ranb believes the opposite and seems to base the view largely on his gut feel about the situation.

This is not to say that Shanek is right and Ranb is wrong. I don't know. The actual answer is probably unknowable but it seems to me that the development of quantitative view of the situation is esential if anything resembling an objective answer was to be obtained. How many new drug users would there be if recreational drug prohibition was abandoned? Data to answer this question might be extrapolated from real data by looking at the effects of much greater drug availability for pharmacists and physicians on their lives. A quantitative look at the experiments of various European countries with the easing of recreational drug prohibitions might also provide some information.

a_unique_person

29th May 2005, 11:33 PM

From a recreational point of view, you only have to look at the very rich. They can buy anything they want.

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by shanek
And they aren't as it is?

The point is, if you are doing a drug that makes you addicted, you are not free anymore. You don't have freedom to decide for yourself, because the drugs do it for you.

I am truly amazed that you would allow something that does harm to people, so they lose their freedom.

Originally posted by shanek
Or maybe in general we'll become less reliant on antibiotics. Which is probably a good thing. Much of the problem with drug resistant strains came about through prescribed antibiotics, remember. It seems a pretty inevitable outcome.

Huh?? So, people are better at diagnosing themselves than their doctors?

Originally posted by shanek
Drugs weren't always illegal, you know. The data available says that the addiction rate remains constant despite whatever the law says or does. That was true with alcohol, and it's true with drugs such as heroin and cocaine as well.

You really need to open a history book sometimes.

Originally posted by shanek
What about the existance of Drain-O and rat poison?

Not drugs. I don't see you gobble down uranium either.

Originally posted by shanek
Because Pepsi and other sellers of caffeinated beverages are members of the voluntary standards body known as the American Beverage Association (http://www.ameribev.org/), which sets standards for safe levels of caffeine in beverages. All on their own, no government needed.

BZZT! Let's hear your version of how cocaine became popular in the US.

Kerberos

30th May 2005, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by username

I think drugs like antibiotics would be self regulated quite well due to our knowledge of antibiotic resistance and the importance of stemming it.
There's no real reason to think that would work, developing antibiotics resistance is an externality. The irresponsible user doesn't bear any significant part the cost himself and hence has no real incentive to behave responsibly.

a_unique_person

30th May 2005, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
There's no real reason to think that would work, developing antibiotics resistance is an externality. The irresponsible user doesn't bear any significant part the cost himself and hence has no real incentive to behave responsibly.

And there are more than enough people out there who misuse anti-biotics as it is. Governments here have been forcing doctors to refuse anti-biotics to the punters who walk in the door with a cold. It's a surprisingly popular urban myth that anti-biotics cure a viral infection. Many doctors, not wanting to turn away business, have been prescribing anti-biotics when they knew they shouldn't.

30th May 2005, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
There's no real reason to think that would work, developing antibiotics resistance is an externality. The irresponsible user doesn't bear any significant part the cost himself and hence has no real incentive to behave responsibly.

When a new bug comes along that eats our common anibiotics for breakfast and I get sick it does effect me, directly. Alternatively, who pays for the extra health care that a person with a resistance needs? I understand that you have free health care up there but you must recognize that services are paid for by someone.

30th May 2005, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by shanek
There is a massively addictive, mind-altering drug which has a lethal dose of only ten grams. It's called "caffeine." Are you at a risk of OD-ing on it? Hardly. Because Pepsi and other sellers of caffeinated beverages are members of the voluntary standards body known as the American Beverage Association (http://www.ameribev.org/), which sets standards for safe levels of caffeine in beverages. All on their own, no government needed.

I knew a psychpharmocologist who used to spike his coffee with pure caffine, he said it gave him a buzz.

And if Coke thought there was money in it you really don't think that they would make Nitro-Coke?

The fact is that we really don't know what things would be like with no drug laws, historical precidents notwithstanding (particularly since they are obviously irrelevant). I suspect that more impaired people would be out and about. I also suspect that it would be rather a sad situation once Madison Avenue turned their talents to promoting use.

I look at it this way: If clever PR folks could make (retch) Paris Hilton (shivver) a "star" they could, indeed, convince people to drink rat poison.

Leif Roar

30th May 2005, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by shanek
There is a massively addictive, mind-altering drug which has a lethal dose of only ten grams. It's called "caffeine." Are you at a risk of OD-ing on it? Hardly. Because Pepsi and other sellers of caffeinated beverages are members of the voluntary standards body known as the American Beverage Association, which sets standards for safe levels of caffeine in beverages. All on their own, no government needed.

People do die from overdoses of caffeine, although it's quite rare. It's a little dishonest of you to focus on the caffeinated beverages, as Pepsi et al don't use caffeine as a drug but rather as a flavoring and thus uses limited doses anyway. You're much more at risk from dietary supplements or medications that contains caffeine as an active ingredient.

Caffeine is also rather safe as drugs come in that the dose needed for effect is much lower than the lethal dose, something which makes it hard to accidentally ingest a lethal dose. The same is not true for other drugs. (There's a reason why more people die from alchohol poisoning than from poisoning by table salt, even though the former is restriced and the latter is not; and the reason is not the restrictions on sale of alchohol but that salt is less dangerous than alchohol as a poison.)

Rob Lister

30th May 2005, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
It's a little dishonest of you to focus on the caffeinated beverages, as Pepsi et al don't use caffeine as a drug but rather as a flavoring...

Really? Is that what they say or ...

This cola company doesn't use it for taste

http://www.joltcola.com/

Leif Roar

30th May 2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Really? Is that what they say or ...

This cola company doesn't use it for taste

http://www.joltcola.com/

You're right, I was stating things far too strongly. My main point was that the amount of caffeine in beverages (even high-caffeine beverages such as jolt cola) is much less than that found in other sources, and that one should therefore not focus primarily on the beverage companies.

shanek

30th May 2005, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Ed
I knew a psychpharmocologist who used to spike his coffee with pure caffine, he said it gave him a buzz.

Yes, and people who do that put themselves at an enormous risk. Some even die from it. But don't you think that problem would get 1000 times worse if the government were to prohibit caffeine?

And if Coke thought there was money in it you really don't think that they would make Nitro-Coke?

If they thought there was money in it. But there's no money in putting your customers at risk. Even Jolt cola, which uses its amount of caffeine as an advertising point, doesn't put anywhere near enough caffeine in it to be dangerous.

The fact is that we really don't know what things would be like with no drug laws, historical precidents notwithstanding (particularly since they are obviously irrelevant).

Why are they irrelevant?

I suspect that more impaired people would be out and about. I also suspect that it would be rather a sad situation once Madison Avenue turned their talents to promoting use.

Why didn't it happen that way after alcohol prohibition was lifted? People said that it would. People said all of the things people are saying would happen with the drug war gone today. It didn't happen then; why should it happen now?

shanek

30th May 2005, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
People do die from overdoses of caffeine, although it's quite rare.

Yes, and as I said above it happens whenever someone gets their hands on pure caffeine and misuses it. Which would happen a lot more if caffeine were criminalized, since there'd be no way of knowing how much you were getting, just like heroin and cocaine today.

It's a little dishonest of you to focus on the caffeinated beverages, as Pepsi et al don't use caffeine as a drug but rather as a flavoring and thus uses limited doses anyway.

Now, that's just completely wrong. Caffeine has a very bitter taste. Compare refular Pepsi to caffeine-free Pepsi: the caffeine-free Pepsi tastes better, and if you look on the ingredients you'll find out it has less sugar in it than reglar Pepsi. That's because they don't need as much sugar since they don't have the bitter taste of caffeine to cover up.

Caffeine is also rather safe as drugs come in that the dose needed for effect is much lower than the lethal dose, something which makes it hard to accidentally ingest a lethal dose. The same is not true for other drugs.

That's just not true, either. It's very similar for cocaine as it is for caffeine. The problem is, since cocaine is legal, people can't control how much of it they get, so they may be taking a certain amount of it without knowing how much of that is pure cocaine.

(There's a reason why more people die from alchohol poisoning than from poisoning by table salt, even though the former is restriced and the latter is not; and the reason is not the restrictions on sale of alchohol but that salt is less dangerous than alchohol as a poison.)

Geez...you accuse me of being dishonest by making a comparison to caffeine, which is actually quite similar to heroin and cocaine in many ways, and then you go around comparing alcohol to table salt???

:rolleyes:

shanek

30th May 2005, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
You're right, I was stating things far too strongly. My main point was that the amount of caffeine in beverages (even high-caffeine beverages such as jolt cola) is much less than that found in other sources, and that one should therefore not focus primarily on the beverage companies.

The beverages are how recreational caffeine users and addicts get their caffeine.

And yes, caffeine is found in some medicines, because it has medical uses. Tylenol's migraine medicine contains 300mg of acetaminophen and 15mg of caffeine. You'd have to take 667 tables to get a fatal dose of caffeine! Since 25mg of acetaminophen can be fatal, you'd die from that at 84 tablets, much, much sooner.

30th May 2005, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, and people who do that put themselves at an enormous risk. Some even die from it. But don't you think that problem would get 1000 times worse if the government were to prohibit caffeine?

I have no way of knowing.

Why are they irrelevant?

Different time, different culture, different people. It is about as meaningful a comparison as one to Denmark.

Why didn't it happen that way after alcohol prohibition was lifted? People said that it would. People said all of the things people are saying would happen with the drug war gone today. It didn't happen then; why should it happen now?

Because it was a different time and place. The sin product people self regulate since they live in mortal dread of the feds. [/QUOTE]

shanek

30th May 2005, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Ed
I have no way of knowing.

Use your brain. Do you really think the millions of office workers across the country will simply give up caffeine? No! After the riots are over, they'll turn to the black market to get their morning fix. And again, with the black market, their doses won't be controlled the way they are with the drink companies.

Different time, different culture, different people.

Same drugs, same humans, same biology. What does the culture have to do with it?

Because it was a different time and place.

Well, that's a nice way to dismiss anything...What if we had a Hitler-esque ruler take over? All the comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis would be invalid because "it was a different time and place"?

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Use your brain. Do you really think the millions of office workers across the country will simply give up caffeine? No!

"No"? Decaf is selling like crazy....

Drooper

30th May 2005, 08:48 AM

That's done it....

Thread offcially killed.

Let's call this the Shanek-Larsen Rule.;)

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
That's done it....

Thread offcially killed.

Let's call this the Shanek-Larsen Rule.;)

What, me proving Shanek wrong? :D

Leif Roar

30th May 2005, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, and as I said above it happens whenever someone gets their hands on pure caffeine and misuses it.

Or when they overdose on medicaments containing large doses of caffeine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7391779&dopt=Abstract

I suspect you have no actual data about how many of the (very few) deaths caused by caffeine poisoning is from pure caffeine, compared to those caused by products containing caffeine. Am I mistaken?

Which would happen a lot more if caffeine were criminalized, since there'd be no way of knowing how much you were getting, just like heroin and cocaine today.

Nobody has said a word about criminalising caffeine, so I don't see any what relevance your assumptions about what will happen in the hypothetical situation that caffeine is criminalised has to the discussion.

Now, that's just completely wrong. Caffeine has a very bitter taste.

Yes, and? Just because a substance is bitter certainly doesn't mean it can't be used for flavoring.

Compare refular Pepsi to caffeine-free Pepsi: the caffeine-free Pepsi tastes better,

That's a matter of personal taste and hardly a solid fact.

and if you look on the ingredients you'll find out it has less sugar in it than reglar Pepsi. That's because they don't need as much sugar since they don't have the bitter taste of caffeine to cover up.

Or you could turn it on its head and say that they have to use less sugar since there's no caffeine to mask the sweetness of the sugar. Remember that the reciepe for decaffeinated pepsi has been made to try and emulate the taste of regular pepsi as close as possible, without using caffeine.

That's just not true, either. It's very similar for cocaine as it is for caffeine. The problem is, since cocaine is legal, people can't control how much of it they get, so they may be taking a certain amount of it without knowing how much of that is pure cocaine.

The leathal dose of cocaine is at around 1.2 grams orally (and uncertain when sniffed,) and a typical user-dose is 0.1 to 0.2 grams (two to four "lines") The leathal dose for caffeine is almost ten times as much, but the typical user-dose remains about the same (a cup of coffee contains about 80-150 mg of caffeine.) How is that "very similar"?

Furthermore, even if cocaine had been about as safe as caffeine, how does that gainsay my claim that there are drugs that are more dangerous than caffeine?

Geez...you accuse me of being dishonest by making a comparison to caffeine, which is actually quite similar to heroin and cocaine in many ways, and then you go around comparing alcohol to table salt???

No, I'm not comparing the two. In fact, I'm saying that alchohol is much more dangerous than table salt, even though the "leathal dose" of table salt and alchohol is not all that different. About 400 grams of table salt can kill an adult, which is not too far from the amount of pure alchohol that can cause alchohol poisoning (and remember that we're talking about poisoning here, not longterm health issues.)

The beverages are how recreational caffeine users and addicts get their caffeine.

And yes, caffeine is found in some medicines, because it has medical uses. Tylenol's migraine medicine contains 300mg of acetaminophen and 15mg of caffeine. You'd have to take 667 tables to get a fatal dose of caffeine! Since 25mg of acetaminophen can be fatal, you'd die from that at 84 tablets, much, much sooner.

There are drugs that contains more caffeine than that. Vivarin, for instance, contains about 200 mg of caffeine per tablet. It's still difficult to overdose from it (around 50 tablets) but some people have managed.

Underemployed

30th May 2005, 10:04 AM

There is no need to let personal enmities obstruct a good argument.

We cannot dismiss historical precedent so easily. A prime example is the Chinese Opium War (or Wars, as the conflict ranged from 1839 to 1858).

You can argue that the issue of opium addiction was an excuse for trade protectionism on China's part, as there is little reliable data to show how many addicts there were or what the cost on society was due to the drug, and China's trade balance with the West was not good.

Whatever your take on the reason for the dispute, There are two inescapable facts:

1) China had criminalised opium and was ostensibly suffering from it - so much so that they went to war over the matter.

2) In British India, the main source of the imported opium, the drug was legal and freely available. The authorities did not appear to be concerned. (Again, you could argue that these are not comparable because the British were less worried about the 'native' populace, but given the current lack of huge numbers of opium addicts - and the continued cultivation of legal opium, albeit heavily regulated - this would require strong evidence)

You could look at the banning of Absinthe in Western Europe, which show to our modern-day sensibilities that the ban was for political, not health reasons - witness the lack of any arrests now that the drink is freely available across Europe again.

You may look at modern day micro-examples of the matter - for instance, the easy availibility of Viagra in Mexico, where huge numbers of US citizens cross the border with the express purpose of purchasing drugs that are not freely availible elsewhere (though not necessarily prohibited). Do we see large numbers of citizens overdosing on Mexican Viagra? No, we just get silly jokes. (http://www.superlaugh.com/1/blkmarket.htm)

There is also the rise of prescription drugs for purchase over the internet. Again, we can ask if there is a corresponding rise in unintended overdoses.

Looking at the history of drug prohibition, you will see a pattern emerges: A societal group - typically the poor/unemployed/undesireables (but sometimes the upper echelons of society) discover a chemical that gets them high. The Rulers of the day disapprove for various reasons and make the chemical illegal to provide or posess. Said group finds another chemical. Rinse and repeat. This cycle appears to be an integral part of human civilisation.

Sources:

Opium Wars (http://www.oldnewspublishing.com/opium.htm)

Opium growth in India (http://www.ieo.org/opm_trai.html)

History of Absinthe (http://www.absintheonline.com/acatalog/History.html)

Quick Cocaine primer (http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc02.htm)

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Underemployed
1) China had criminalised opium and was ostensibly suffering from it - so much so that they went to war over the matter.

China was ostensibly suffering from opium use, and then criminalized it. The number of addicts rose, because the British started smuggling it into China.

Try reading your own link:

In the early days of British rule, under the East India Company, opium production was discouraged. In 1773, India's first Govenor General, Warren Hastings, recognized that opium was harmful and opposed increasing its production. However, he encouraged the control of opium by the company hoping that by monopolizing and limiting the supply its consumption could be controlled.

By the end of the century, however, huge quantities of Indian opium, grown in Bengal, were being shipped to China, where addiction had reached epidemic proportions despite imperial edicts banning its import and consumption.
Opium growth in India (http://www.ieo.org/opm_trai.html)

Perhaps not the best example to use...

Originally posted by Underemployed
You could look at the banning of Absinthe in Western Europe, which show to our modern-day sensibilities that the ban was for political, not health reasons - witness the lack of any arrests now that the drink is freely available across Europe again.

The absinthe you can get today is with a very low amount of thujone.

Originally posted by Underemployed
You may look at modern day micro-examples of the matter - for instance, the easy availibility of Viagra in Mexico, where huge numbers of US citizens cross the border with the express purpose of purchasing drugs that are not freely availible elsewhere (though not necessarily prohibited). Do we see large numbers of citizens overdosing on Mexican Viagra? No, we just get silly jokes. (http://www.superlaugh.com/1/blkmarket.htm)

What do you get is an increased risk of heart failure, as well as a possible risk of going blind.

CBL4

30th May 2005, 11:55 AM

Davefoc made a very good observation:
It seems to me the key issue here is "are the enormous costs of enforcing the recreational drug prohibitions justified by the reduction in the number of disfunctional drug users that the regulations produce".and as is typical on this forum he was ignored.

The thing that is of utmost important to me is "Who are the victims?"

I would prefer drug users not to lose their jobs. I would prefer drug users not die. But, honestly, I do not really care too much about them because they made a choice.

The people I really care about are the involuntary victims.
1) The people who are robbed to support a junkies habit.
2) The people whose streets are not safe do to drug sale related violence.
3) The people who are injured by drug using drivers.
4) To a lesser degree I care about the friends and families of drug abusers.

If we legalize drugs
1) The cost goes down and fewer people will be robbed.
2) Drug sales violence will be similar to alcohol sales violence - e.g. virtually non-existant.
3) It is likely there might be a small increase in driving under the influence but there might be a reduction in driving under the influence of alcohol as people change their intoxication habits.
4) If drug use increases, it seems like this would be bad as far as friends and families of drug users. However, if drugs are treated like alcohol, the user would be less likely to lose a job. It is likely that the f&f would be much better off.

Finally, I think that drug users are less likely to become abusers if drugs are legalized. The products they buy will be consistent and pure. They are less likely to lose their jobs. Even I though I do not care much about them, I think they will be better off.

Who are the big losers? Policemen, prison guards and prison builders. If we legalize drugs, a large percentage of crimes disappear and we can replace the drain on the economy with more productive endeavors.

CBL

30th May 2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by CBL4
Davefoc made a very good observation:
and as is typical on this forum he was ignored.

The thing that is of utmost important to me is "Who are the victims?"

I would prefer drug users not to lose their jobs. I would prefer drug users not die. But, honestly, I do not really care too much about them because they made a choice.

The people I really care about are the involuntary victims.
1) The people who are robbed to support a junkies habit.
2) The people whose streets are not safe do to drug sale related violence.
3) The people who are injured by drug using drivers.
4) To a lesser degree I care about the friends and families of drug abusers.

If we legalize drugs
1) The cost goes down and fewer people will be robbed.
2) Drug sales violence will be similar to alcohol sales violence - e.g. virtually non-existant.
3) It is likely there might be a small increase in driving under the influence but there might be a reduction in driving under the influence of alcohol as people change their intoxication habits.

Really? You have some data, don't you?

4) If drug use increases, it seems like this would be bad as far as friends and families of drug users. However, if drugs are treated like alcohol, the user would be less likely to lose a job. It is likely that the f&f would be much better off.

Why "less likely"? Why should consumers pay for rehab? Why should a company have the aggrevation? And what about family and friends? I am glad you have "less concern" for them. What about cocaine positive births? That is "family" so I guess it is not an issue.

Finally, I think that drug users are less likely to become abusers if drugs are legalized. The products they buy will be consistent and pure. They are less likely to lose their jobs. Even I though I do not care much about them, I think they will be better off.

Alcoholism is a problem. Why do you think adding abuseable substances is beneficial? So someone can "get high"? Hardly a compelling reason.

Who are the big losers? Policemen, prison guards and prison builders. If we legalize drugs, a large percentage of crimes disappear and we can replace the drain on the economy with more productive endeavors.

The addicts, their families, their friends, their employers.

CBL [/QUOTE]

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by CBL4
I would prefer drug users not to lose their jobs. I would prefer drug users not die. But, honestly, I do not really care too much about them because they made a choice.

Did they?

You really think that heroin addicts consciously chose a life in chemical slavery?

Got any evidence of that?

30th May 2005, 01:23 PM

I am really curious.

What is the net benefit to eliminating drug laws? Cost? So people can get high? What? Why am I better off?

And if it isa cost, why not knock off old those old farts? Save a bunch. But that would be wrong because of...human dignity? The value of human life?

shanek

30th May 2005, 01:50 PM

Geez, so much misinformation...

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Or when they overdose on medicaments containing large doses of caffeine:

See my point above.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7391779&dopt=Abstract

The link doesn't say what appetite suppressant, so I'm forced to speculate. The only one I found was mentioned on a website called Health4All and had 50mg per dose, with a dosage of 1 tablet per day. You'd need to ingest 200 tablets to get a fatal dose. So how many of these were deliberate suicides? Your link doesn't say.

Nobody has said a word about criminalising caffeine, so I don't see any what relevance your assumptions about what will happen in the hypothetical situation that caffeine is criminalised has to the discussion.

Nice dodge.

Yes, and? Just because a substance is bitter certainly doesn't mean it can't be used for flavoring.

Ah, yes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Or you could turn it on its head and say that they have to use less sugar since there's no caffeine to mask the sweetness of the sugar.

:rolleyes:

"Mask the sweetness of the sugar"...is anyone taking this guy seriously? Instead of "masking the sweetness of the sugar," you could just not put the sugar in to begin with. You've said exactly what I did, except you deceptively tried to make it out that caffeine is the flavoring, something that you don't have one iota of evidence for and that contradicts even basic logic.

Remember that the reciepe for decaffeinated pepsi has been made to try and emulate the taste of regular pepsi as close as possible, without using caffeine.

Right, and so, without the bitterness of caffeine, they used less sugar. Duh.

The leathal dose of cocaine is at around 1.2 grams orally (and uncertain when sniffed,) and a typical user-dose is 0.1 to 0.2 grams (two to four "lines") The leathal dose for caffeine is almost ten times as much, but the typical user-dose remains about the same (a cup of coffee contains about 80-150 mg of caffeine.) How is that "very similar"?

Because you're deceptively leaving out the fact that people don't just stop at one dose. Caffeine addicts drinking coffee throughout the morning can easily get up to 1 gram. And it takes caffeine up to 12 hours to get out of the user's system.

No, I'm not comparing the two. [snip Leif comparing the two]

This is just ridiculous. You have nothing. People drink alcohol for completely different reasons than people eat salt. It is much easier to consume a certain amount of alcohol than a certain amount of salt. On and on and on. It's just another pathetic excuse to ignore the facts.

There are drugs that contains more caffeine than that. Vivarin, for instance, contains about 200 mg of caffeine per tablet. It's still difficult to overdose from it (around 50 tablets) but some people have managed.

50 tablets??? You're making my point for me!

BTW, you get 300mg of caffeine in less than two cups of coffee.

shanek

30th May 2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by CBL4
The thing that is of utmost important to me is "Who are the victims?"

I submit that if you do something detrimental to yourself, you are not a victim. You're just stupid. Stop whining, take some freakin' responsibility, learn from your mistakes, and stop running to mommy government to solve your problems.

I hate this "victim" mentality. I hear crap all the time about how addicts are "victims," they have a "disease," they "aren't acting of their own free will." They remove personal responsibility from the equation. I have beaten two addictions. All I had to do was stop taking the substance I was addicted to. No, it isn't easy, and it usually requires the help of family and friends, but it can be done. You're not a "victim" if you do it to yourself. It's not a "disease" if you can "cure" yourself just by refraining from certain actions. And if you "aren't acting of your own free will," how does anyone beat an addiction? Only through free will, which means they have it.

The people I really care about are the involuntary victims.
1) The people who are robbed to support a junkies habit.
2) The people whose streets are not safe do to drug sale related violence.
3) The people who are injured by drug using drivers.
4) To a lesser degree I care about the friends and families of drug abusers.

If we legalize drugs
1) The cost goes down and fewer people will be robbed.
2) Drug sales violence will be similar to alcohol sales violence - e.g. virtually non-existant.
3) It is likely there might be a small increase in driving under the influence but there might be a reduction in driving under the influence of alcohol as people change their intoxication habits.
4) If drug use increases, it seems like this would be bad as far as friends and families of drug users. However, if drugs are treated like alcohol, the user would be less likely to lose a job. It is likely that the f&f would be much better off.

And it would be easier for friends and family to intervene without having to worry about their loved one being carted off to jail to be turned into a real criminal. You're absolutely right: The problems with drugs are really the problems of drug prohibition.

Finally, I think that drug users are less likely to become abusers if drugs are legalized. The products they buy will be consistent and pure. They are less likely to lose their jobs. Even I though I do not care much about them, I think they will be better off.

They're much less likely to overdose, too.

Who are the big losers? Policemen, prison guards and prison builders.

You forgot drug dealers and politicians.

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek
I submit that if you do something detrimental to yourself, you are not a victim. You're just stupid. Stop whining, take some freakin' responsibility, learn from your mistakes, and stop running to mommy government to solve your problems.

I hate this "victim" mentality. I hear crap all the time about how addicts are "victims," they have a "disease," they "aren't acting of their own free will." They remove personal responsibility from the equation. I have beaten two addictions. All I had to do was stop taking the substance I was addicted to. No, it isn't easy, and it usually requires the help of family and friends, but it can be done. You're not a "victim" if you do it to yourself. It's not a "disease" if you can "cure" yourself just by refraining from certain actions. And if you "aren't acting of your own free will," how does anyone beat an addiction? Only through free will, which means they have it.

That has to be one of the most ignorant, stupid, callous and heartless posts I have ever seen.

shanek

30th May 2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Why "less likely"? Why should consumers pay for rehab? Why should a company have the aggrevation? And what about family and friends? I am glad you have "less concern" for them. What about cocaine positive births? That is "family" so I guess it is not an issue.

Oh, yes, wouldn't it be horrible if those things started happening! :rolleyes:

Alcoholism is a problem.

Not anywhere near the problem it was during Prohibition. Not with the bathtub gin etc.

shanek

30th May 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Ed
What is the net benefit to eliminating drug laws? Cost? So people can get high? What? Why am I better off?
Drug crimes eliminated immediately (including the turf wars between drug dealers that kill innocent lives)
Residual crimes eliminated (such as addicts robbing stores to support their habit)
Better tendency to seek rehabilitation (since they won't have to worry about jail time by doing so)
More effective drug rehabilitation (since they'd have the ability to wean themselves off of drugs instead of having to go cold turkey, which often doesn't work)
Half of all current prisoners released (putting these nonviolent people back to productive use in society)
The residual effect of having half of all prisoners released (no more rapists, murderers, and child molestors being released so that a drug offender can serve out a mandatory sentence)
More resources used by police and courts to catch and prosecute real criminals (such as more rapists, murderers, and child molestors)
Less corrupt police (so many police become corrupt because of the huge amounts of money to be made in the drug trade)
The elimination of hideous abrogations of our liberty (such as asset forfeiture)
The prevention of further invasions on our liberties caused by running the War on Drugs
Saving billions per year in tax dollars
Just off the top of my head.

ETA: I thought of one more: Fewer drugs being sold to kids (criminal drug dealers tend not to check IDs; legitimate drug dealers tend not to recruit school kids to sell for them)

Underemployed

30th May 2005, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
China was ostensibly suffering from opium use, and then criminalized it. The number of addicts rose, because the British started smuggling it into China.

So the problem became worse after the government criminalised it? It gladdens my heart to see you and Shanek agreeing on something.

Forgive me my little dig. CFLarsen and Ed are posters I read and respect, I just happen to differ slightly with your stance on this subject.

The opium wars may not be the best example from history of drug legalisation Vs prohibition, but I still contend that they (the wars) do illustrate and support the side of little or no regulation. The English Governor General certainly "recognized that opium was harmful and opposed increasing its production" but did not ban it outright as China did. So we still have the situation whereby:

Country A produces and sells drug X legally.

Country B prohibits drug X, experiences an increase in addicts.

Sadly there was no control country in a similar position to China which allowed the unrestricted importation of addictive drugs (I exclude our modern-day 'acceptable' drugs like tobacco and alcohol). This would allow us to make the necessary sober judgement: Would things have turned out different in China had they not 'got tough'?

Were the subjects of British India worse off than they would have been if the Governor General had followed Lin Tse-hsÃ¼'s actions, and imposed a strict ban on opium?

We can't make a judgement on India as the data is not readily available. Current trends (http://www.gatewayforindia.com/articles/addiction.htm) indicate that opium is still used in rural areas but is no longer the drug of choice.

However, we can say, with some authority, that :

[...]China's policy of prohibiting opium consumption and cultivation from 1729 to 1858 assured the East India Company a de facto monopoly over this fast growing market and created the basic underlying conditions for the hyper profitability of the India-China opium trade.

Without this prohibition on cultivation, China could have reacted the Company's aggressive exports of Bengal opium by encouraging local opium harvests and destroying both market and profits for the Indian imports. As it was, China's addicts and their near insatiable demand for the illicit drug created high profits and inspired ferocious competition among merchant captains competing for a share of this lucrative market--English out of Calcutta, Indian and English out of Bombay, and Americans out of Smyrna, Turkey.
(Source) (http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi009.htm)

Was this a historical blip, irrelevant to current affairs?

Look at the international traffic in Heroin/Cocaine and you will see direct parallels. The surprising conclusion is that what we may need is more regulation, not less - for as soon as addicts get safe and cheap access to their chosen drug, they cease to be a problem. This regulation and provision, as illustrated by the feeding frenzy of the South-China Traders (and their modern day counterparts, the drug barons), can and must be provided by governments.

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Drug crimes eliminated immediately (including the turf wars between drug dealers that kill innocent lives)

Far from it. The rules of a free market will immediately kick in (right??), ensuring that those that can deliver the product the cheapest will get the market share. Who do you think will work the cheapest, Joe Q. Taxpayer or some illegal immigrant, dependent on some drug czar?

Originally posted by shanek
Residual crimes eliminated (such as addicts robbing stores to support their habit)

This would require close-to-free drugs, which we know ain't gonna happen.

Originally posted by shanek
Better tendency to seek rehabilitation (since they won't have to worry about jail time by doing so)

That would require that more drug rehabilitation centres would open, and - since you refuse any such centres if they are government run - I simply don't see how such centres can run a profit.

Originally posted by shanek
More effective drug rehabilitation (since they'd have the ability to wean themselves off of drugs instead of having to go cold turkey, which often doesn't work)

Again, who would pay for these treatments?

Originally posted by shanek
Half of all current prisoners released (putting these nonviolent people back to productive use in society)

I would like to see some statistics on this. I fear it won't be forthcoming.

Originally posted by shanek
The residual effect of having half of all prisoners released (no more rapists, murderers, and child molestors being released so that a drug offender can serve out a mandatory sentence)

This is a political decision. It has nothing to do with having a non-regulated drug market.

Originally posted by shanek
More resources used by police and courts to catch and prosecute real criminals (such as more rapists, murderers, and child molestors)

For what purpose? The police are free to decide what crimes they feel are constitutional or not (well, according to you), so why would this mean that more child molestors would be caught?

Originally posted by shanek
Less corrupt police (so many police become corrupt because of the huge amounts of money to be made in the drug trade)

There is no guarantee that a free drug market ensures low prices.

Originally posted by shanek
The elimination of hideous abrogations of our liberty (such as asset forfeiture)

Huh??

Originally posted by shanek
The prevention of further invasions on our liberties caused by running the War on Drugs

Party Propaganda.

Originally posted by shanek
Saving billions per year in tax dollars

How so?? You will create a hell of a lot of addicts who need costly treatment. Who will pay for that?

Originally posted by shanek
Just off the top of my head.

Just once in a while, I wish you would keep the lid on.

CFLarsen

30th May 2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Underemployed
So the problem became worse after the government criminalised it? It gladdens my heart to see you and Shanek agreeing on something.

It did not become worse because of the ban. The abuse was already growing rapidly.

Do you deny that there was a huge problem before opium was made illegal? Just yes or no, please.

Leif Roar

30th May 2005, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Geez, so much misinformation...

See my point above.

The link doesn't say what appetite suppressant, so I'm forced to speculate. The only one I found was mentioned on a website called Health4All and had 50mg per dose, with a dosage of 1 tablet per day. You'd need to ingest 200 tablets to get a fatal dose. So how many of these were deliberate suicides? Your link doesn't say.

So? The point was that not all deaths due to caffein poisoning comes from chemically pure caffein.

Nice dodge.

How's it dodging to point out that I'm standing here, while you're shooting over there? Nobody has talked about criminalising caffein. It's not what's being discussed; so whatever effects criminalising caffein might have is simply not relevant to the discussion in any way.

Ah, yes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

:rolleyes:

"Mask the sweetness of the sugar"...is anyone taking this guy seriously? Instead of "masking the sweetness of the sugar," you could just not put the sugar in to begin with. You've said exactly what I did, except you deceptively tried to make it out that caffeine is the flavoring, something that you don't have one iota of evidence for and that contradicts even basic logic.

Will you accept the Coca Cola Company as a credible source for the use of caffein in beverages? From http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/columns_bitter.html

"Caffeine has long been recognized as a flavor by experts in the field. The bitter flavor of caffeine favorably affects the flavor profiles of many popular food and beverage products. Chocolate, tea and soft drinks carefully integrate the bitterness of caffeine to create appealing taste sensations that win loyal consumers. Not only is caffeine a direct contributor to flavor, it subtly interacts with other ingredients to influence the overall taste of the food or beverage.

Why caffeine is in Coca-ColaÂ®
In Coca-Cola, Diet CokeÂ®, and Coke LightÂ®, caffeine plays a vital flavor role by rounding out the true cola taste that consumers love. Flavor is the only reason for using caffeine in these products. The caffeine content of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke and Coke Light never exceeds the amount necessary to achieve the correct flavor profile."

Right, and so, without the bitterness of caffeine, they used less sugar. Duh.

Pretty much, yes.

Because you're deceptively leaving out the fact that people don't just stop at one dose. Caffeine addicts drinking coffee throughout the morning can easily get up to 1 gram. And it takes caffeine up to 12 hours to get out of the user's system.

*shrugs* I really didn't think that was worth mentioning, as it's common knowledge that people drink more than one cup of coffee. (I'll admit to a nigh complete lack of knowledge about the use of cocaine, but do they always stop at one dose?)

And while it's relatively easy to imbibe 10% of a deadly dose throughout a day, it's much more difficult to unintentially imbibe 100% of a deadly dose of caffeine than 100% of a deadly dose of cocaine.

This is just ridiculous. You have nothing. People drink alcohol for completely different reasons than people eat salt. It is much easier to consume a certain amount of alcohol than a certain amount of salt. On and on and on. It's just another pathetic excuse to ignore the facts.

Err, yes. That's my point -- that altohugh alchohol and table salt has similar leathal doses by weight, they are not equally dangerous because it's much harder to imbibe a leathal amount of table salt than of alchohol. I used the example of table salt and alchohol to support my argument that just because caffeine is safe enough that it doesn't need restrictions, you can't generalise and say that the same is true for all drugs.

50 tablets??? You're making my point for me!

I might be mistaken, but I believe your point was that since caffeine doesn't need to be regulated, no drugs need to be regulated. I don't see that I'm making that point.

BTW, you get 300mg of caffeine in less than two cups of coffee.

Yes, and so what?

shanek

30th May 2005, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
So? The point was that not all deaths due to caffein poisoning comes from chemically pure caffein.

Wonderful. Now all you have to do is show where I claimed that.

How's it dodging to point out that I'm standing here, while you're shooting over there? Nobody has talked about criminalising caffein. It's not what's being discussed; so whatever effects criminalising caffein might have is simply not relevant to the discussion in any way.

More dishonest dismissal. It is a dodge. The FACT remains that, caffeine is potentially a very dangerous drug, but it isn't dangerous because it's regulated by the free market.

Will you accept the Coca Cola Company as a credible source for the use of caffein in beverages?

No more than I'll accept the tobacco companies as a credible source saying nicotine isn't addictive. The reason they put caffeine in is to sell their products to caffeine addicts. Caffeine has absolutely none of the qualities sought after by the free market as a flavoring. And again, comparing the taste of regular Pepsi to caffeine free Pepsi shows how ridiculous this claim is.

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/8/727

The finding that only 8% of a group of regular cola soft drink consumers could detect the effect of the caffeine concentration found in most cola soft drinks is at variance with the claim made by soft drink manufacturers that caffeine is added to soft drinks because it plays an integral role in the flavor profile.

Pretty much, yes.

But how, then, does that make caffeine a flavoring of any kind?

*shrugs* I really didn't think that was worth mentioning, as it's common knowledge that people drink more than one cup of coffee.

Why would you make a claim that is easily seen as invalid by "common knowledge"?

And while it's relatively easy to imbibe 10% of a deadly dose throughout a day, it's much more difficult to unintentially imbibe 100% of a deadly dose of caffeine than 100% of a deadly dose of cocaine.

EXACTLY!!!! HE GETS IT!!!! And....WHY would this be? Caffeine addicts routinely take 1/10th the lethal dose but very rarely overdose, cocaine addicts routinely take 1/10th the lethal dose and overdose much more regularly...caffeine is regulated by the free market, cocaine is criminalized and therefore unregulated, meaning that addicts don't know how much they're taking...Work it out!

I used the example of table salt and alchohol to support my argument that just because caffeine is safe enough that it doesn't need restrictions, you can't generalise and say that the same is true for all drugs.

Except that the argument doesn't come anywhere approaching showing that.

I might be mistaken, but I believe your point was that since caffeine doesn't need to be regulated, no drugs need to be regulated.

No; it's that if caffeine were criminalized, you'd see a lot more problems with it. I'm making the argument that the free market makes it very difficult to overdose on caffeine.

Yes, and so what?

Just putting it into perspective. You mentioned the dosage of Vivarin as a higher dose, making it easier for people to OD on it. I'm pointing out that your own example makes it so difficult for them to OD that it's ridiculous and actually makes my point about how difficult it is to OD on caffeine in a free market.

Earthborn

30th May 2005, 03:04 PM

I submit that if you do something detrimental to yourself, you are not a victim. You're just stupid.Eureka! Shanek has beaten science and has singlehandedly figured out the explanation for all behavioural disorders neuropsychiatry has been searching for.

So Shanek, tell us your amazing discovery with huge implications to diseases such as anorexia, bulimia, body dismorphic disorder, phobias, automutilation, addictions, compulsions, etc... etc... What causes some people to exhibit self-destructive behaviour?

"They're just stupid." :rolleyes:I hear crap all the time about how addicts are "victims," they have a "disease," they "aren't acting of their own free will." They remove personal responsibility from the equation.And rightfully so.It's not a "disease" if you can "cure" yourself just by refraining from certain actions.You assume that you can. Something you have no evidence for. Sometimes diseases solve themselves. You say that you can cure yourself by refraining from certain actions, I say that you refrained from certain actions because you were cured.And if you "aren't acting of your own free will," how does anyone beat an addiction?Maybe no one does and it was just spontaneous remission allowing one to stop one's destructive behaviour.

CBL4

30th May 2005, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This would require close-to-free drugs, which we know ain't gonna happenLet's see, to make a million dollars worth of cocain, the drug traffickers pay peasants a few hundred dollars. Do you there is a slight extra overhead because of the illegallity?

If drug prices drop in half, half the robbery needed to pay for drugs would disappear.

You really think that heroin addicts consciously chose a life in chemical slavery?Well, they rarely have the first dose shot into their veins against their will, so I guess the answer is that they made a choice. Did they forsee all the consequences of their actions? Probably not but neither does a mountain climber who dies in an avalanche.

It's called making a risky choice. It's part of the glory of living (and occasionally dieing.) I like to let people do what they want as long as they are not directly hurting or endangering someone else.

CBL

30th May 2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by CBL4
Let's see, to make a million dollars worth of cocain, the drug traffickers pay peasants a few hundred dollars. Do you there is a slight extra overhead because of the illegallity?

If drug prices drop in half, half the robbery needed to pay for drugs would disappear.

What you are saying is that illeagal drug dealers, with minimum overhead, will necessarily win a price war. They will expand to virgin markets (from the standpoint of legitimate drug dealers) like kids. This is business 101, the result of a free market system.

The idea that illegal drugs will dissappear and the villians that make money on it will go away is just plain silly.

Well, they rarely have the first dose shot into their veins against their will, so I guess the answer is that they made a choice. Did they forsee all the consequences of their actions? Probably not but neither does a mountain climber who dies in an avalanche.

We are talking about drugs. The consequences are clear to anyone who has made even a vague attempt to examine addiction.

It's called making a risky choice. It's part of the glory of living (and occasionally dieing.) I like to let people do what they want as long as they are not directly hurting or endangering someone else.

Unfortunately it effects me and I have a little problem with someone destroying their lives because of a "bad choice". Do you really think that the typical addict was not confient that he could "quit whenever he wants"?

CBL

Underemployed

30th May 2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you deny that there was a huge problem before opium was made illegal? Just yes or no, please.

No.

Only a misguided apologist for drug abuse would say yes.

Are you implying this affects the rest of the argument?

Which, incidentally, is broadly in agreement with your anti-Shanek thrust: That there should be some form of governmental regulation of pharmaceuitcal products in all shapes and forms, right down to common foodsuffs.

The examples I have used illustrate why governmental heavy-handedness in prohibiting various drugs are doomed to failure. Prohibition is an abrogation of duty - it is washing your hands of the matter, not regulation.

Proscribing human behaviour of any kind is like putting your hands over your ears and singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you!" It is only by facing the problem head on and accepting that a certain percentage of humans will make bad decisions that we will make progress.

As a UK taxpayer, I would much rather my tax money provided cheap and plentiful heroin to those who found themselves addicted, than to the forces of the state created to battling the heroin trade and incarcerating the producers and consumers. From a purely selfish point of view, it would be cheaper:

The cost of Drug Prohibition

Drug War Facts: The Real Economics (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm)

The War On Drugs Clock (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm)

Basic Facts on the War On Drugs (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm)

Counting The Costs of the Drugs War (http://www.alternet.org/story/18641)

All the evidence suggests that in answer to Davefocs' OP, a world with no drug regulation whatsoever would be hell on earth, because, as the Opium Wars show us, the free market response to lack of regulations is to maximise demand and profits, which means as large a pool of addicts as possible.

The only sane response to this is governments providing drugs to those who need them, without passing judgement on those who, for whatever reason, are addicted.

30th May 2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by shanek
I have beaten two addictions. All I had to do was stop taking the substance I was addicted to.

Then, my frien, you are in fact an addict. You simply stopped doing whatever you were doing, for the time being.

I treat your anecdote the same as I treat UFO stories.

CBL4

30th May 2005, 03:25 PM

Ed,

From your lack of rebuttal I assume you agree that legalizing drugs will help:
1) The people who are robbed to support a junkies habit.
2) The people whose streets are not safe do to drug sale related violence.
Since I living in a transitioning neighborhood (still officially designated as blighted), I would love to see the drug prohibition inspired theft stop.

Why "less likely [to lose a job]"? Why should consumers pay for rehab? Why should a company have the aggrevation? And what about family and friends? I am glad you have "less concern" for them. What about cocaine positive births? That is "family" so I guess it is not an issue.
...
Alcoholism is a problem. Why do you think adding abuseable substances is beneficial? So someone can "get high"? Hardly a compelling reason.Alcoholics can hold a job because drinking is neither a crime nor a reason to lose (or not get) a job. Social drinkers and alcoholics are the proper comparison. A drug user could function in a drug legalized society in the same manner that an alcohol user can function in today's society. As long as they go to work and drive sober, they could be productive members of society.

If they become abusers, they would be like alcoholics. They are likely to lose their jobs but not go to jail. If they clean themselves up, they can get a new start without the stigma of a criminal record. If they don't, they can beg for money like drunks do because drugs will be much cheaper. Yes, it's disgusting but they are not threaten me or my family. That's a great improvement.

Cocaine births are the equivalent to alcohol related deformities. It is possible that legalizing drugs could increase it. It is also possible that being able to admit cocaine use to a doctor could reduce it. In some states, if a pregnant woman admits to a drug problem, she is locked up. This is not a great incentive for a pregnant drug user to go to a doctor much less ask for help.

I do not want people to become habitual drug users much less abusers. But occasionally use is not harmful and that is what most people do. I would guess that well over half the people on this board have used pot and a quarter have used other drugs. Guess what? We are all intelligent, productive people. But we all risked our futures do to the Puritanical prohibition of drugs.

As far as companies agravation, they are lots of companies that would have a great agravation if all the drug users left. Maybe the companies I work for are an abberation but if all the software written by drug users were recalled, there would not be much software left.

CBL

30th May 2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by shanek
[list] Drug crimes eliminated immediately (including the turf wars between drug dealers that kill innocent lives)

The free market system would argue no.

Residual crimes eliminated (such as addicts robbing stores to support their habit)

How much are these drugs costing? $10 can cause a crime if you don't have it.
Better tendency to seek rehabilitation (since they won't have to worry about jail time by doing so)

Who pays?

More effective drug rehabilitation (since they'd have the ability to wean themselves off of drugs instead of having to go cold turkey, which often doesn't work)

Nor does weaning off. The easy presence of drugs would make it harder, I think.
Half of all current prisoners released (putting these nonviolent people back to productive use in society)

Are you kidding me? You think all these guys are nice white MBA students that were jailed for a joint? I'd love to see the constellation of charges that are present along with the drug charge. And what will these paragons do when they get out?

The residual effect of having half of all prisoners released (no more rapists, murderers, and child molestors being released so that a drug offender can serve out a mandatory sentence)

Wild.

ETA: I thought of one more: Fewer drugs being sold to kids (criminal drug dealers tend not to check IDs; legitimate drug dealers tend not to recruit school kids to sell for them)

So no one will feed this clear market need? How un-libertarian.

[/QUOTE]

Underemployed

30th May 2005, 03:38 PM

CBL4
Half of all current prisoners released (putting these nonviolent people back to productive use in society)

Ed
Are you kidding me? You think all these guys are nice white MBA students that were jailed for a joint? I'd love to see the constellation of charges that are present along with the drug charge. And what will these paragons do when they get out?

A good point, and one which has been considered: (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm)

The French organization OGD points out the deeper economic impact from the eventual release of American drug felons: "(A)ccording to some estimates some 3.5 million prisoners will be released between now and 2010, and an additional 500,000 each year thereafter.
"Such a large-scale release of unskilled people - most of them cannot even read and write - will have a negative impact on wages, which are already low in deprived urban areas, due to a massive influx of men desperate to get a job; especially, since the reform of the welfare system in 1996 severely reduced felons' access to welfare money."

Source: Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues, The World Geopolitics of Drugs 1998/1999 (Paris, France: OGD, April, 2000), p. 133.

(See point 53 at bottom of page)

Drug prohibition will force down wages. This will make all but the already-rich worse off.

30th May 2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Underemployed
[B]A good point, and one which has been considered: (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm)

The French organization OGD points out the deeper economic impact from the eventual release of American drug felons: "(A)ccording to some estimates some 3.5 million prisoners will be released between now and 2010, and an additional 500,000 each year thereafter.
"Such a large-scale release of unskilled people - most of them cannot even read and write - will have a negative impact on wages, which are already low in deprived urban areas, due to a massive influx of men desperate to get a job; especially, since the reform of the welfare system in 1996 severely reduced felons' access to welfare money."

Source: Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues, The World Geopolitics of Drugs 1998/1999 (Paris, France: OGD, April, 2000), p. 133.

(See point 53 at bottom of page)

Drug prohibition will force down wages. This will make all but the already-rich worse off.

Have I mentioned lately how much I respect, nay, love the French?

Seriously. A lot of the libertarian stuff seems like exemplar issues for the law of unintended consequences.

So now we might have mexican migrants and poor blacks in contention for the same non-existant jobs. Cool. Guess who the republicans will fellate for votes?

Seems this legalization thingie needs a bit more thought.

TeaBag420

30th May 2005, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Then, my frien, you are in fact an addict. You simply stopped doing whatever you were doing, for the time being.
...

Dr. Drew checking in.

http://drdrew.com/

TeaBag420

30th May 2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Underemployed

All the evidence suggests that in answer to Davefocs' OP, a world with no drug regulation whatsoever would be hell on earth, because, as the Opium Wars show us, the free market response to lack of regulations is to maximise demand and profits, which means as large a pool of addicts as possible.

The only sane response to this is governments providing drugs to those who need them, without passing judgement on those who, for whatever reason, are addicted.

First quoted paragraph: Isn't that the free market response to everything?

Second quoted paragraph: Isn't that what the British were doing in China? Oh, you meant for free.

Have I mentioned my sex addiction?

CBL4

30th May 2005, 04:30 PM

"Such a large-scale release of unskilled people - most of them cannot even read and write - will have a negative impact on wages, which are already low in deprived urban areas, due to a massive influx of men desperate to get a job; especially, since the reform of the welfare system in 1996 severely reduced felons' access to welfare money."So it is better economically to pay tens of thousand of dollars a year to lock people up rather let them try to find a job?

And by the way they are only felons because of drug laws. If we retroactively erased their felony convictions, they would probably be more likely to get a job when they are released. Then they would pay taxes instead of needing tax money to support them.

Edited to add: I think this is a great idea. We should jail all the unemployed instead of giving them welfare payments. It apparently would be more economically beneficial.

CBL

30th May 2005, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by CBL4
So it is better economically to pay tens of thousand of dollars a year to lock people up rather let them try to find a job?

There is no clear evidence that they are/can/will work. The only evidence that we have is that they will break laws to make money (excepting the poor white MBA's busted for a joint).

And by the way they are only felons because of drug laws. If we retroactively erased their felony convictions, they would probably be more likely to get a job when they are released. Then they would pay taxes instead of needing tax money to support them.

Only drugs? What about weapons possession? Do you think that a big time trafficer is going to work at Wendy's? When you show the crimes that these folks tend to be convicted of in addition to possession we can discuss it. And...what kind of jobs are we talking here?

Edited to add: I think this is a great idea. We should jail all the unemployed instead of giving them welfare payments. It apparently would be more economically beneficial.

CBL

Cute, but you are ducking a few basic questions by pure belief worthy of a fundie:

- given that these guys have production->refinement->distribution and their costs are low, why do you think they will not engage in a price war? (and win)

- why would they not target kids as a method of market expantion?

- What "jobs" are they qualified for? Who is going to hire them? How many are going to get these "jobs"?

-why work? They already have demonstrated a proclivity for crime.

[/QUOTE]

CapelDodger

30th May 2005, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Maybe the overuse of antibiotics would lead to massive outbreaks of drug resistant strains of bacteria that would threaten us all or maybe not as educational campaigns would significantly control the misuse of antibiotics. Western farmers have been flooded with educational materials, not to mention legal restrictions seriously enforced, they have been told they are killing their own children and serving the cause of Satan and Stalin, and they're still buying them on the grey-black market. Humanity in general will prove no better. Humans are basically stupid and credulous. Important matters like antibiotic use should not be left to the whims of the lumpen. We are at war with bacteria and they outnumber us. Screw dirty bombs, we've got a real history with these chaps. They are relentless, and the split goes back a long way. We have a responsibility, not just as humans but as eukaryotes, to husband our weaponry. Try selling that to the electorate through public education ads. Antibiotic Resistance is evilutionist propaganda, isn't it? Thay hate you for making more profit when your pigs fatten quicker. (Link to site where you can buy Vancomycin because the other **** doesn't work any more ...)

Heroin and such, no problem, it's not catching.

shanek

30th May 2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Eureka! Shanek has beaten science and has singlehandedly figured out the explanation for all behavioural disorders neuropsychiatry has been searching for.

So Shanek, tell us your amazing discovery with huge implications to diseases such as anorexia, bulimia, body dismorphic disorder, phobias, automutilation, addictions, compulsions, etc... etc... What causes some people to exhibit self-destructive behaviour?

"They're just stupid." :rolleyes:

They're stupid if they don't accept responsibility for the consequences, yes.

I have an extreme phobia of hypodermic needles. Is it stupid? You bet! It's not based in any kind of logic or reason. I know they're safe. My mind for some reason cooks up all these bad things that can happen that I know are impossible, such as the tip of the needle breaking off and flowing through my bloodstream until it pierces my heart and I die. I know that's BS, but I can't help being afraid of it.

What do I do? Whenever I need a shot (which, thankfully, isn't often), I suck up the fear and take it. Because I'm still a human being with free will.

If someone is insane, then that of course is a completely different story. But that's not what we're talking about here.

And rightfully so.

No, VERY WRONGFULLY so. Doing that is exactly what's gotten us into this mess.

You assume that you can.

No, I've DONE IT. To stop being an addict, all you have to do is stop ingesting whatever it is you're addicted to. The fact that it isn't easy doesn't magically take away the responsibility.

You say that you can cure yourself by refraining from certain actions, I say that you refrained from certain actions because you were cured.

Now that is ridiculous. Because being "cured" would simply mean that I had made the decision not to do it. Because that's all it took.

Maybe no one does and it was just spontaneous remission allowing one to stop one's destructive behaviour.

There's a drink in front of me. I have the CHOICE of whether or not to pick it up and drink it. That's true of a casual drinker, of a non-drinker like me, and of an alcoholic. It's a willful action. The fact that it's much easier for a non-drinker like me to pick it up and drink it (in fact, the difficulty with me would be actually drinking it, because I can't stand the stuff) than for an alcoholic doesn't make the action any less willful.

shanek

30th May 2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Ed
What you are saying is that illeagal drug dealers, with minimum overhead, will necessarily win a price war. They will expand to virgin markets (from the standpoint of legitimate drug dealers) like kids. This is business 101, the result of a free market system.

That's a completely ignorant statement. They would be PUT OUT OF BUSINESS, unless they themselves went legit. Once Bayer and Tylenol get into business doing it, why would anyone take the enormous risk that drug dealers and those who work for them take?

The idea that illegal drugs will dissappear and the villians that make money on it will go away is just plain silly.

Really? It actually seems tautological to me. The villains will either have to go legit or move into another area of crime, like gambling or prostitution...unless, of course, we legalized those...

The villains can only make money with government prohibition.

We are talking about drugs. The consequences are clear to anyone who has made even a vague attempt to examine addiction.

The 8/2/94 issue of the New York Times published data from Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse on the relative addictiveness of many substances. Marijuana scored at the bottom, even under caffeine.

So, marijuana isn't really all that addictive, and yet, people still keep doing it despite the fact that it's illegal. How do you explain that?

Unfortunately it effects me

Only because of government prohibition.

shanek

30th May 2005, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Underemployed
The examples I have used illustrate why governmental heavy-handedness in prohibiting various drugs are doomed to failure.

You don't even need to go that far. Just look at the fact that government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons!

shanek

30th May 2005, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Then, my frien, you are in fact an addict. You simply stopped doing whatever you were doing, for the time being.

Ah, I see; redefining the problem away. Wonderful.

One of the addictions I beat was caffeine. Earlier this year, when one of my business partner's daughters got married, I was at the reception and got some punch. The moment I took the first sip, I noticed a very bitter taste and suspected what it meant. I asked my partner if there was any caffeine in the punch, and he thought about and said, "Yeah, I guess there is." The point is, I had it in my mouth, and as soon as I knew what it was I spit it back out. Is that the response of an addict?

Or how about this: While I was weaning myself off of the caffeine, I discovered at one point that even a small amount of caffeine in my drink would make my stomach upset. I no longer had a tolerance for the toxins. So my body, far from being dependent on caffeine, will actually reject it.

Now what about all of this fits the description of an addict?

shanek

30th May 2005, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Ed
The free market system would argue no.

Wrong; the free market system is what would prevent it.

How much are these drugs costing? $10 can cause a crime if you don't have it.

How many people commit robberies to get alcohol, or aspirin if they have a really bad headache, or color TVs, compared to how many people commit robberties to buy drugs?

Who pays?

I ain't psychic, Claus Jr. If they can get the money to buy drugs in the first place, why couldn't they get the money for rehabilitation? Then there's the help of family and friends, or of charities, etc. The whole "who pays?" thing has always been a red herring brought up by Socialists when they lose the argument.

Nor does weaning off. The easy presence of drugs would make it harder, I think.

All of the available data say you're wrong.

Are you kidding me? You think all these guys are nice white MBA students that were jailed for a joint?

Half of them are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. They haven't commited the first act of violence against anybody.

Wild.

It happens. It's not my fault you've got your head buried in the sand.

So no one will feed this clear market need? How un-libertarian.

Ah, personal attacks. More proof you've lost.

CapelDodger

30th May 2005, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Underemployed
The French organization OGD points out the deeper economic impact from the eventual release of American drug felons: "(A)ccording to some estimates some 3.5 million prisoners will be released between now and 2010, and an additional 500,000 each year thereafter.
"Such a large-scale release of unskilled people - most of them cannot even read and write - will have a negative impact on wages, which are already low in deprived urban areas, due to a massive influx of men desperate to get a job; especially, since the reform of the welfare system in 1996 severely reduced felons' access to welfare money." This is hard to interpret. Has there already been an influx of desperates (illegal immigrants, a big issue in itself) driving down wages, has the 1996 change already had a significant effect (released felons are not being as recidivist as before because of welfare changes and are competing for jobs), or would the change only be significant if millions of working-age men suddenly had free shelter and 3-squares taken away from them and were dumped back in the projects?

One thing that is clear is that the US prison population is enormous, and does not contribute to unemployment figures. If it did, the usual comparison with French or German figures would be a lot less flattering.

CBL4

30th May 2005, 06:13 PM

Only drugs? What about weapons possession? Do you think that a big time trafficer is going to work at Wendy's?According to this link
NEARLY one quarter of America's prisoners--almost 460,000 people--are behind bars for nonviolent drug offenses...
The cost of incarcerating these nonviolent drug offenders nationwide will rise to $9.4 billion this year.
(My emphasis)http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/08.03.00/drugs-0031.html

That's approximate $20,000 a year for prison alone. It does not count the cost for police or prosecution. I think that perhaps for $10,000 a year we could give them drug treatment. Or perhaps for $20,000 maybe we could give them education as well.

CBL

shanek

30th May 2005, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Underemployed
A good point, and one which has been considered: (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm)

The French organization OGD points out the deeper economic impact from the eventual release of American drug felons: "(A)ccording to some estimates some 3.5 million prisoners will be released between now and 2010, and an additional 500,000 each year thereafter.
"Such a large-scale release of unskilled people - most of them cannot even read and write - will have a negative impact on wages, which are already low in deprived urban areas, due to a massive influx of men desperate to get a job; especially, since the reform of the welfare system in 1996 severely reduced felons' access to welfare money."

Wild speculation that completely contradicts Say's Law. You might as well say, "DEYTOOKAWRJAWBZ!!!!"

shanek

30th May 2005, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by TeaBag420
First quoted paragraph: Isn't that the free market response to everything?

All of the available data show that the addiction rate remains constant regardless of what the government's policy is. There were just as many alcoholics under Prohibition as there were before and after, and just as many heroin and cocaine addicts back when it was legal as there are now or at any point in between. It seems as if certain people are just prone to self-medicate.

Have I mentioned my sex addiction?

But it's not your fault! It's a "disease," and you're a "victim." And I'm not kidding: if you're a man, it's called "satyrism," if you're a woman, it's "nymphomaina."

You might even qualify for government money...

shanek

30th May 2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
This is hard to interpret. Has there already been an influx of desperates (illegal immigrants, a big issue in itself) driving down wages, has the 1996 change already had a significant effect (released felons are not being as recidivist as before because of welfare changes and are competing for jobs), or would the change only be significant if millions of working-age men suddenly had free shelter and 3-squares taken away from them and were dumped back in the projects?

The effect has been seen several times in history. Whether they're Chinese immigrants, Italian immigrants, Irish immigrants, Mexican immigrants, or whatever, all of the available data show that they created the jobs that they "took," in perfect conformance with Say's Law.

What articles like the one above ignore is the fact that these people just aren't working; they're also consuming. Also, that much extra labor constitutes resources in the market, which will increase productivity. The limiting factor in the economy is total output; total output is increased with more workers.

shecky

30th May 2005, 07:34 PM

Prohibition didn't keep folks from getting drunk. It just raised the prices and created a incredibly profitable, and often violent, black market.

The war on drugs has completely failed to cut supply. I can leave my house, and within ten minutes, obtain any drug I want. All I need is enough money. To feed a black market economy, which can sometimes get very violent.

If it's perfectly legal to drink yourself to death, why is it not legal to snort/smoke/inject yourself to death?

Earthborn

30th May 2005, 07:59 PM

Whenever I need a shot (which, thankfully, isn't often), I suck up the fear and take it.If you can do that, then you do not have an extreme phobia. It just means you are afraid of needles. Someone with a real extreme phobia is unable to 'suck up their fear' and will suffer a panic attack or even goes into shock when confronted with the thing s/he is afraid of.If someone is insane, then that of course is a completely different story. But that's not what we're talking about here.Yes, it is. We are talking about people who are victims of behaviour they do to themselves. That includes insane people, does it not?No, I've DONE IT.So you say. But all we know is that you are apperently not addicted anymore (if you ever really were), you show no evidence that your decision to stop is the cause or an effect of being cured of the addiction.Because being "cured" would simply mean that I had made the decision not to do it.It means that being cured means that you were able to make the decision not to do it.The fact that it's much easier for a non-drinker like me to pick it up and drink it (snip) than for an alcoholic doesn't make the action any less willful.I think you again show your ignorance when it comes to compulsive behaviour.So my body, far from being dependent on caffeine, will actually reject it.

Now what about all of this fits the description of an addict?Fits the description of a foodaversion, which means that you just traded one compulsive disorder for another, or have one compulsive disorder masking another. Interestingly you say that it is your 'body' that rejects it, not that you reject it out of your own free will. Apperently you don't want to take responsibility for it. :rolleyes:It's a "disease," and you're a "victim." And I'm not kidding: if you're a man, it's called "satyrism," if you're a woman, it's "nymphomaina."It is a good thing we have Shanek as the ultimate authority on what is and is not a real disease... :rolleyes:

davefoc

30th May 2005, 11:50 PM

Earthborn,
I wonder if you could comment on Holland's experiments with drug decriminalization?

I was told when I was in Holland that marijuana was technically illegal,. but I saw it growing in shop windows and in a nursery so how is it illegal?

What are the Dutch policies with regards to other drugs that might be called recreational? Any thoughts about the effect of those policies?

What are the Dutch policies with regard to other prescription drugs? My daughter tells me that in France, pharmacists routinely prescribe drugs. Is that also true in the Netherlands?

I believe that I have related this story to you before, if so I apologize for telling it again. When I visited a windmill in Holland I got into a discussion with the woman that I took to be the owner of the windmill. She was about 55 as I recall. I asked her what she thought about the reduced prohibitions on drugs in Holland. Her answer was that she didn't like people using drugs but as a practical matter it seemed to be a better way to go. It was a little surprising because I doubted that very many women in the US at all would have had such a practical view with respect to drug laws. Most women of her age in the US I guessed would be much more in tune with a just say no policy and put their asses in jail if they happened to say yes. I thought that this might be representative of what I sensed as the very practical approach of the dutch. Although in California we have passed by the initiative process a bill that requires drug offenders to be offered counseling rather than mandatory jail so maybe there are more practically oriented middle aged women in California than I would have guessed with respet to drug laws.

As an aside my daughter was visiting Holland last week and she said the fields of tulips were beautiful.

Earthborn

31st May 2005, 02:06 AM

I was told when I was in Holland that marijuana was technically illegal,. but I saw it growing in shop windows and in a nursery so how is it illegal?It is illegal. It is just that someone cannot be prosecuted if s/he carries less than 5 grams, and 'coffeeshops' that sell the stuff are often tolerated if they don't have more than 30 grams in stock. Whether 'coffeeshops' are tolerated and where they are tolerated is up to individual city councils though.

If you saw plants growing openly, I sincerely doubt that they were real marijuana plants, though. Probably they were just low-THC hemp plants. Especially if there is a lot of them, you can expect the police sooner or later.What are the Dutch policies with regards to other drugs that might be called recreational? Any thoughts about the effect of those policies?The Dutch government tries very hard to be part of the War On Drugs to fulfil its promises to the US. It is pretty tough in to try to get rid of the image of a 'narcostate' the US government is trying to portrait the Netherlands as.

But the treatment of addicts is fairly sensible. They are rarely treated as criminals just because of their addiction. Compared to other countries, there is a fairly wide range of treatment options by subsidised non-profit organisations.

One quite remarkeable initiative is the free heroin 'experiment' in which a carefully selected group of long-term heroin addicts can get heroin prescribed by a doctor if they agree to be medically examined and monitored. If we can believe the politicians it is a resounding success: even before any real results were published, they wanted to greatly expand the project and put in as many addicts as possible.

The participating addicts, often in their 50s and 60s with a lifetime of addiction, could finally get a reasonably stable life, didn't need to resort to criminal activity or prostitution to get their stuff, some of them managed to hold on to a job, a few even kicked their habit after a while. That's what both scientists and politicians claimed would happen, and that's what they both said did happen. Shanek will probably say that it is all politically biased and if these people could just buy their heroin on the free market and buy whatever rehabilitation they wanted on the free market without all this 'government' intrusion into their lives, it would all end up even better. But that's not something that is supported by anyone around here.What are the Dutch policies with regard to other prescription drugs?Let me first say that the Dutch language makes a clear distinction between 'drugs' and 'medicines'. With the word 'drugs' we always mean what in the US is refered to as 'illegal drugs'. A discussion about drug regulation where people often refer to the relation of medicines as well as the prohibition of 'recreational' drugs would probably not occur very often here.My daughter tells me that in France, pharmacists routinely prescribe drugs. Is that also true in the Netherlands?No. I'm pretty sure medicines are only prescribed by doctors. The roles of doctors and pharmacists are strictly seperated. The doctor prescribes, the pharmacist provides.I thought that this might be representative of what I sensed as the very practical approach of the dutch.Well, some people call it practical, others call it hypocritical and inconsistent. It's Dutch though!As an aside my daughter was visiting Holland last week and she said the fields of tulips were beautiful.I'm sure they are. I can't comment on them, I live in an area where they grow asperges (Blech!) instead.

CFLarsen

31st May 2005, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by shanek
But it's not your fault! It's a "disease," and you're a "victim." And I'm not kidding: if you're a man, it's called "satyrism," if you're a woman, it's "nymphomaina."

You might even qualify for government money...

Since you think these diseases are not real diseases, what do you consider "diseases", then?

shanek

31st May 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
If you can do that, then you do not have an extreme phobia.

Ah...again, defining the proplem away.

Someone with a real extreme phobia is unable to 'suck up their fear' and will suffer a panic attack or even goes into shock when confronted with the thing s/he is afraid of.

That's just completely wrong. A panic attack is something completely different, and it is not a response to any particular stimuli. They have a "trigger," but that's not the same thing. The trigger may be something like a flashing light. But it doesn't have anything to do with what they feel fear or anxiety about. They may not even be consciously aware of the trigger. They may not even feel fear or anxiety about anything at all, just the general feeling of it.

http://familydoctor.org/137.xml

It's completely different from a phobia, which is a persistent and irrational fear of something that is reasonably harmless:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00272

The former is a medical condition for which there is a physical cause. It's like any other disease: they need help to treat it. The latter is a psychological disorder, and although it can be treated medically, it's still mostly a matter of free will for the person with the phobia.

Yes, it is. We are talking about people who are victims of behaviour they do to themselves. That includes insane people, does it not?

No, it doesn't, because they're unable to understand the consequences of their actions.

So you say. But all we know is that you are apperently not addicted anymore (if you ever really were), you show no evidence that your decision to stop is the cause or an effect of being cured of the addiction.

Oh, I see. It just so happens that both addictions went into spontaneous remission at exactly the same time I decided to rid myself of them. And the whole withdrawl experience, etc., wel, that was just....that was what, now?

It means that being cured means that you were able to make the decision not to do it.

Again, you're redefining the problem away. If I was cured at that point, why did I have withdrawl symptoms?

I think you again show your ignorance when it comes to compulsive behaviour.

You'd like to think that, but in truth I have a LOT of experience with these things, with myself and several family members.

Fits the description of a foodaversion, which means that you just traded one compulsive disorder for another, or have one compulsive disorder masking another.

Not wanting to drink something that will upset my stomach is a compulsive disorder??? You're getting more and more ridiculous the more you try to defend your position...

Interestingly you say that it is your 'body' that rejects it, not that you reject it out of your own free will.

I can drink it if I want to. But if I do, I'll get an upset stomach. Just like my body will try to reject any other toxin it doesn't have a tolerance for.

shanek

31st May 2005, 11:13 AM

disÂ·ease: an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors

—Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

So, how does a behavior, that one performs through free will, in any way count as a "disease"?

davefoc

31st May 2005, 12:16 PM

Earthborn wrote:One quite remarkable initiative is the free heroin 'experiment' in which a carefully selected group of long-term heroin addicts can get heroin prescribed by a doctor if they agree to be medically examined and monitored. If we can believe the politicians it is a resounding success: even before any real results were published, they wanted to greatly expand the project and put in as many addicts as possible.

The participating addicts, often in their 50s and 60s with a lifetime of addiction, could finally get a reasonably stable life, didn't need to resort to criminal activity or prostitution to get their stuff, some of them managed to hold on to a job, a few even kicked their habit after a while. That's what both scientists and politicians claimed would happen, and that's what they both said did happen. Shanek will probably say that it is all politically biased and if these people could just buy their heroin on the free market and buy whatever rehabilitation they wanted on the free market without all this 'government' intrusion into their lives, it would all end up even better. But that's not something that is supported by anyone around here.

This is very similar to what I thought the British system was with regard to some recreational drugs based on a documentary I saw years ago. Maybe somebody could comment on whether this kind of program is still available in the UK. It is the approach that I have favored for a long time without any knowledge about how well the programs have worked. I think there is a small chance that one could build a consensus around the idea to start such a program in some states in the US. One problem is that the federal government has become so pervasive in establishing drug policies that experiments limited to states are probably impossible any more. The current Democrats don't think much of state rights and the Republicans only think that state rights apply when the states want to do what the Republicans think they should.

As to your comment about the meaning of "drugs" and "medicines" in Dutch: This is an ambiguous area of American English. Generally, it can be determined from context when somebody uses the word "drugs" to refer to recreational or abused drugs or whether they mean the entire gammit of chemicals used to treat and or effect bodies and minds in some way beyond that of simple food.

Earthborn

31st May 2005, 04:31 PM

It's completely different from a phobia, which is a persistent and irrational fear of something that is reasonably harmlessPanic attacks can happen without having a phobia, but extremely severe (which is what we are talking about) phobias can include panic attacks. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia):Phobias vary in severity among individuals, with some phobics simply disliking or avoiding the subject of their fear and suffering mild anxiety. Others suffer fully-fledged panic attacks with all the associated disabling symptoms.The former is a medical condition for which there is a physical cause.Everything has a physical cause, so your distinction is meaningless.No, it doesn't, because they're unable to understand the consequences of their actions.Not all people considered insane are unable to understand the consequences of their actions. Some are unable to control them.It just so happens that both addictions went into spontaneous remission at exactly the same time I decided to rid myself of them.No, you 'decided' to rid yourself of them when a spontaneous remission occured. Your decision may have been the result of that remission.And the whole withdrawl experience, etc., wel, that was just....that was what, now?A disease doesn't disappear suddenly. It is only logical that you experience setbacks.You'd like to think that, but in truth I have a LOT of experience with these things, with myself and several family members.But apperently very little understanding of the biological causes of behaviour.Not wanting to drink something that will upset my stomach is a compulsive disorder???No, getting the feeling that your stomach is upset when you drink something you don't want to is. Notice that you said yourself that your stomach didn't get upset until you knew the drink contained caffeine. That makes it a psychological reaction to the knowledge of drinking caffeine, not a toxicological reaction to the caffeine itself.I can drink it if I want to. But if I do, I'll get an upset stomach.I think you only get an upset stomach because you expect to get one. A psychological reaction can be very strong and feel very physical.So, how does a behavior, that one performs through free will, in any way count as a "disease"?A behaviour that one performs through free will (if you insist on using that term) cannot be a disease. A behaviour that one performs despite free will and interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors or to inherent defects of the organism can be.

TeaBag420

31st May 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
A disease doesn't disappear suddenly.

That assertion, along with your reliance on Wikipedia (check out the entry for Dr. Joyce Brothers) makes me question your reasoning ability.

My syphilis disappeared suddenly.

CFLarsen

1st June 2005, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by shanek
—Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

So, how does a behavior, that one performs through free will, in any way count as a "disease"?

I thought you had me on ignore? :D

Is it through "free will"? What do you think "addiction" means? Do you think it is possible that an addiction can be genetic?

Go ahead, answer. Nobody believes you have me on ignore anyway.

Kerberos

1st June 2005, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Ed
When a new bug comes along that eats our common anibiotics for breakfast and I get sick it does effect me, directly.
Sure it does, but it affects you equally much, whether the resistance is caused by your own irrisponsible use of anti-biotics or somebody elses, hence the externality.

shanek

1st June 2005, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
No, you 'decided' to rid yourself of them when a spontaneous remission occured.

Ah, I see. So it's a complete coincidence. Gotcha.

Your decision may have been the result of that remission.

Then it wasn't a decision, it wasn't my choice, I have no free will. Pardon me if I reject that.

A disease doesn't disappear suddenly. It is only logical that you experience setbacks.

Another evasion.

But apperently very little understanding of the biological causes of behaviour.

I quote respected medical sources, you quote Wikipedia, and you can tell me that?

No, getting the feeling that your stomach is upset when you drink something you don't want to is. Notice that you said yourself that your stomach didn't get upset until you knew the drink contained caffeine.

No, I didn't. My stomach gets upset even before I know the drink contains caffeine, and I never said otherwise.

A behaviour that one performs through free will (if you insist on using that term) cannot be a disease. A behaviour that one performs despite free will and interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors or to inherent defects of the organism can be.

Uh-huh. Now all you have to do is explain how things like addiction and phobias fall into that category.

I say, if someone is claustrophobic and takes the stairs instead of an elevator, it is because they themselves decided that they would rather take the extra effort going up the stairs than dealing with the feelings they get in the elevator. They may not choose to get those feelings, but they certainly have the choice whether or not they deal with them. The phobia doesn;t make them take the stairs; if they wanted to, they could deal with those feelings and take the elevator. They don't. That is a choice. Just like I never made the choice to be attracted to women instead of men, or farm animals, or lamp posts. But I do make the choice whenever I date a woman, and I make the choice of whom I sleep with or marry.

Geez, by your thinking, no one is responsible for being fat because sugar and fat taste good!

Valmorian

1st June 2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I say, if someone is claustrophobic and takes the stairs instead of an elevator, it is because they themselves decided that they would rather take the extra effort going up the stairs than dealing with the feelings they get in the elevator. They may not choose to get those feelings, but they certainly have the choice whether or not they deal with them. The phobia doesn;t make them take the stairs; if they wanted to, they could deal with those feelings and take the elevator. They don't. That is a choice.

Interesting. What makes you think they are capable of making that choice? Personally, I suffer from a mild fear of heights. I find it near impossible to stand near the edge of a building, and I realize that my own fears are relatively minor compared to some others. It would be the height of arrogance for me to simply declare that people who suffer from serious phobias are simply "choosing not to deal with their feelings".

Apparently, you have no problem making that arrogant assumption, however.

Earthborn

1st June 2005, 12:03 PM

along with your reliance on WikipediaDon't just sit there and complain about Wikipedia. If you think there are any inaccuracies in it, change it.

The entry on phobias seems not to be in dispute and is quite extensive, so I have no reason to assume it is inaccurate.check out the entry for Dr. Joyce BrothersThe inaccuracy of one entry has no relevance on the accuracy of another entry. Note that I never use an entry that is in dispute as evidence of something.

Also notice the message at the bottom of the Joyce Brothers page: "This biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" So it is not finished. If you have more information on her, add it. If you see any inaccuracies, change them. I assume you consider her some sort of controversial figure? Then add something about the controversy.My syphilis disappeared suddenly.You are right. I should have said: "Not all diseases disappear suddenly." Some diseases, especially mental ones, can seem to appear in and out of existence when they are curing. One day a patient feels well, another day s/he has a fallback into old feelings and behaviour. Someone with a severe compulsive behaviour can feel completely unfree to behave the way they want to and can't control themselves. Once their disease diminishes they feel they regain their control again, but they are likely to have fallbacks later on.

Earthborn

1st June 2005, 12:12 PM

Ah, I see. So it's a complete coincidence. Gotcha.No, the effect is not completely coincidental to its cause.Then it wasn't a decision, it wasn't my choice, I have no free will. Pardon me if I reject that.It depends on the definition of Free Will. You could still have compatibilist free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism). Pardon me if I try to keep more supernatural definitions of free will out of the discussion.Another evasion.It is not an evasion, it is an explanation. It is not very extensive, I'll grant you that.

Suppose someone has schizophrenia and is given medication to cure it. Does that mean the disease suddenly disappears? No, of course not. The patient will experience many fallbacks to old behaviour and old ways of thinking as he is curing. But if the medication works, he will start to believe early on that he can beat the disease. It is going to be tough, but the fact that is it is does not prove in anyway that it was the decision to beat the disease was the cause of the cure and not the medication. Without the medication the patient may never have made that decision.

Replace schizophrenia with addiction, medication with a spontaneous remission and you'll get the idea. Just because you once made a decision to end your addiction does not prove that the decision was the ultimate cause of it. A more fundamental cause may have caused your decision.I quote respected medical sources, you quote Wikipedia, and you can tell me that?Notice that the respected medical sources say nothing that contradicts the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article is just more extensive. Notice also that you have claimed to have an extreme phobia, while you have cited only an article on ordinary phobias. The Wikipedia article does mention phobias that are extreme.

If phobias are not diseases (as you have claimed), why do you think they are mentioned on a respected medical website?

Since you insist on respected medical source, I'll click on a link in the Wikipedia article and give you one; showing you that I am right and you are wrong: Here it is. (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/specphob.htm)My stomach gets upset even before I know the drink contains caffeine, and I never said otherwise.You have said that you only spat out a drink after you knew it contained caffeine. I quote: "The point is, I had it in my mouth, and as soon as I knew what it was I spit it back out." Emphasis mine. You reaction follows your knowledge or maybe your suspicions. Nothing in your body, except for your brain, can make your stomach upset because of caffeine. It is a psychological effect, which of course does not make it any less real.

My experience can beat your experience, because I know how this works: I have been averse to many foods for my entire life. A food aversion is a phobia for a specific foods. Some foods trigger a completely involuntary response of disgust and nausea. One's whole body seems to reject it. It is an irrational psychological response though, but that does not make it possible to control it.Now all you have to do is explain how things like addiction and phobias fall into that category.Phobias affect the normal behaviour of the individual, which is a vital function. Addictions do too, but the abuse of a substance can cause other vital functions to be affected as well. Both are either caused by environmental factors such as trauma or by inherent defects of the brain.They may not choose to get those feelingsYou say something very important. They did not choose to get those feelings!

So what happens if the feelings are so strong that one can't ignore them, can't suck them up, even feel that there is no other choice but to act on them even if one doesn't want to? That's what I am talking about. Some people experience exactly that, the fact that you can suck up your fear for needles does not disprove that. It just disproves that your phobia is 'extreme'.

shanek

1st June 2005, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Interesting. What makes you think they are capable of making that choice?

Because they're human beings, still capable of making decisions. Wanting to avoid unpleasant situations doesn't mean you aren't exercising free will in doing so.

Personally, I suffer from a mild fear of heights. I find it near impossible to stand near the edge of a building, and I realize that my own fears are relatively minor compared to some others. It would be the height of arrogance for me to simply declare that people who suffer from serious phobias are simply "choosing not to deal with their feelings".

Apparently, you have no problem making that arrogant assumption, however.

I never said the words you ascribed to me in quotes. Please do not put words into my mouth.

shanek

1st June 2005, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
No, the effect is not completely coincidental to its cause.

Then you're assuming the conclusion.

It depends on the definition of Free Will. You could still have compatibilist free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism).

But then you've just agreed with me if you've done that. Free will is "caused by our choices as determined by our beliefs, desires, and by our characters."

If you're arguing that the phobia acts as some kind of duress, you have a point there. But even in cases of duress, free will is being applied. The person just agrees to the contract since it's preferable to the undesirable conditions the other person is placing on him. He can still choose to act a different way.

Case in point: the jurors in the William Penn trial. They came back with a not guilty verdict, and the judge said he would throw them in jail if they didn't change their verdict to guilty. He did so, and they stayed in jail for four days without food or water before he relented. They could have chosen the more pleasant route of just doing what the judge wanted, and not many people would have blamed them. But they didn't.

That's also why we don't consider "I was only following orders" as a defense against war crimes.

Now, duress is something we think about being applied from the outside, but if you're likening a phobia to duress than I'd say the same principles apply.

There is always a choice.

It is not an evasion, it is an explanation.

It's just redefining things that might show someone to be cured after the remission as "setbacks."

Suppose someone has schizophrenia and is given medication to cure it. Does that mean the disease suddenly disappears? No, of course not. The patient will experience many fallbacks to old behaviour and old ways of thinking as he is curing. But if the medication works, he will start to believe early on that he can beat the disease. It is going to be tough, but the fact that is it is does not prove in anyway that it was the decision to beat the disease was the cause of the cure and not the medication. Without the medication the patient may never have made that decision.

So, what, the placebo effect works? I really don't see how that relates to what we're talking about.

Replace schizophrenia with addiction, medication with a spontaneous remission and you'll get the idea.

Let's follow a more detailed sequence:

Mr. X is addicted to caffeine.
Mr. X drinks a lot of caffeine as a result.
Mr. X's friend tells him caffeine is unhealthy. Mr. X is skeptical thinking his friend is likely wrong or at least exaggerating.
Mr. X continues to drink a lot of caffeine.
Mr. X runs across a book detailing the problems with caffeine (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446673919/qid=1117654776/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-7029301-7131944) and makes a much better, well-supported case for eliminating caffeine, including how to kick the habit.
Mr. X is convinced and decides to give up caffeine.
After a few weeks of weaning himself off of caffeine and experiencing withdrawl symptoms, Mr. X no longer drinks any caffeine at all.

Now, at which point in the above sequence did the "spontaneous remission" kick in?

Since you insist on respected medical source, I'll click on a link in the Wikipedia article and give you one; showing you that I am right and you are wrong: Here it is. (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/specphob.htm)

"The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress. "

Funny...seems like exactly what I've been saying!

You have said that you only spat out a drink after you knew it contained caffeine. I quote: "The point is, I had it in my mouth, and as soon as I knew what it was I spit it back out." Emphasis mine.

But that isn't one of the situations where I experienced the sympom I'm talking about. In fact, that was the first time I discovered I could actually taste the caffeine. The other times I'm talking about occured much earlier, soon after I had quit caffeine.

Nothing in your body, except for your brain, can make your stomach upset because of caffeine. It is a psychological effect, which of course does not make it any less real.

You are just completely wrong. Caffeine is a toxic substance, and can cause such symptoms just like any other toxic substance.

You say something very important. They did not choose to get those feelings!

No, but they do choose how to act on them! Haven't you ever had to do something you really didn't want to do?

So what happens if the feelings are so strong that one can't ignore them, can't suck them up, even feel that there is no other choice but to act on them even if one doesn't want to?

It's still their responsibility. They are MAKING THAT CHOICE. The rest is just excuses. "I had no choice" is an excuse people use; there's always a choice. It's just a choice that was too difficult for them to take.

Valmorian

1st June 2005, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Because they're human beings, still capable of making decisions. Wanting to avoid unpleasant situations doesn't mean you aren't exercising free will in doing so.

This assumes that the only reason people who suffer from phobias avoid the situations in question are because they find them "unpleasant". It seems that you are of the opinion that anyone can beat any addiction by simply choosing to not indulge in it? What reason do I have to accept this assertion?

I never said the words you ascribed to me in quotes. Please do not put words into my mouth.

You:
I say, if someone is claustrophobic and takes the stairs instead of an elevator, it is because they themselves decided that they would rather take the extra effort going up the stairs than dealing with the feelings they get in the elevator.

My Paraphrase:
It would be the height of arrogance for me to simply declare that people who suffer from serious phobias are simply "choosing not to deal with their feelings".

Sounds similar enough to me. I'll let all who read this decide.

username

1st June 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn

Replace schizophrenia with addiction, medication with a spontaneous remission and you'll get the idea. Just because you once made a decision to end your addiction does not prove that the decision was the ultimate cause of it.

It sounds like you would regard alcoholism as a disease rather than a choice to not stop drinking, is that true?

shanek

1st June 2005, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
This assumes that the only reason people who suffer from phobias avoid the situations in question are because they find them "unpleasant".

No, it simply means that people generally want to avoid the phobia rather than having to deal with its effects.

It seems that you are of the opinion that anyone can beat any addiction by simply choosing to not indulge in it?

Where did this word "simply" come from? I keep saying it's not easy. But again, just because it's not easy doesn't mean it's not a matter of willpower.

My Paraphrase:
It would be the height of arrogance for me to simply declare that people who suffer from serious phobias are simply "choosing not to deal with their feelings".

But I wasn't talking about the phobia in that paragraph. I was talking about the person, before being confronted directly with the feelings the phobia will bring them, choosing instead to avoid it. How can you possibly say that isn't a conscious decision?

shanek

1st June 2005, 07:51 PM

By the way, Ed says I'm actually still an addict, Earthborn says my addiction went into spontaneous remission. Isn't the very presence of the two claims evidence of the subjectivity of the claim that it's a "disease"?

username

1st June 2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by shanek
By the way, Ed says I'm actually still an addict, Earthborn says my addiction went into spontaneous remission. Isn't the very presence of the two claims evidence of the subjectivity of the claim that it's a "disease"?

Not sure how many of you get Penn and Teller's "Bu1lshit" show where you live (It is on Showtime here).

They recently did an episode on Alcoholics Anonymous that was quite interesting. Evidently they don't regard alcoholism as a disease and it was interesting the the "cure" rate with AA is 5%, the same as it is without AA.

Their central point seemed to be that it isn't a disease if one got the condition by choosing to so something and one can end the condition by choosing to not do that something.

One might give themselves cancer by smoking, but one can't get rid of the cancer by quitting the smokes. oOn the other hand one may develop a dependency upon nicotine, the additives, the action of smoking, but one doesn't have a disease, they have a behavioral problem.

It was an interesting case they made. I think they are probably correct in their assesment. Behavioral problems that are the result of a choice and that can be ended by a choice really shouldn't be called diseases. The choice might be difficult to make and follow through on, but that doesn't make it a disease.

shanek

1st June 2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by username
They recently did an episode on Alcoholics Anonymous that was quite interesting. Evidently they don't regard alcoholism as a disease and it was interesting the the "cure" rate with AA is 5%, the same as it is without AA.

Yeah, and they also pointed out that the "treatment" for this "disease" hasn't changed one bit since the 1930s. If you had cancer, would you want to be treated with only the level of technology that existed in the 1930s?

Their central point seemed to be that it isn't a disease if one got the condition by choosing to so something and one can end the condition by choosing to not do that something.

Exactly.

Earthborn

1st June 2005, 08:45 PM

But then you've just agreed with me if you've done that.Not quite, because I don't think it excludes the possibility that someone can display behaviours that go directly against one's beliefs or desires. Behaviours that are not caused by Free Will.If you're arguing that the phobia acts as some kind of duress, you have a point there.I do, yes. I also think that many people with compulsive behaviours or thoughts experience their compulsions as something that acts outside of themselves and they cannot control. There are also a number of neurological disorders that can cause one to exhibit behaviours that seem to have a will of their own, completely outside of one's sense of Free Will, such as Alien Hand Syndrome (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12655).So, what, the placebo effect works? I really don't see how that relates to what we're talking about.I don't see how it relates to the placebo effect. My example supposes that the medication works. The patient starts to believe he can beat the disease as an effect of the medication.

Another example of what I am talking about is a story I once read about the effect of a new psychopharmaceutical. A psychiatric ward had many patients that often ran through the halls in the middle of the night screaming in panic, hoping to get attention from the nurses. They were given the new medicine and they stopped doing that. A doctor asked them whether how they felt and whether they thought the medication made them feel less in panic. They invariably answered: "I don't think the medication helps at all. I feel exactly the same, I just think it is pointless to run through the halls screaming." Taken off the medication, they started to run and scream again. The medication had made it possible for them to behave more normally, even if they did not yet feel cured. But the medication did in fact cure them partially, making it possible for them to make more appropriate choices.Now, at which point in the above sequence did the "spontaneous remission" kick in?Okay, that clarification makes sense. Maybe in your case it didn't kick in, the book just gave you negative associations you are reminded of when confronted with caffeine, making you feel sick.Funny...seems like exactly what I've been saying!Also check out section B, which says that phobias can cause panic attacks, which I have been saying all along. And which is the claim you disputed.

I never disputed that some phobic people can choose to endure the thing they are afraid of. Just that that's untrue of the most severe case.Caffeine is a toxic substance, and can cause such symptoms just like any other toxic substance.Not likely in the concentrations found in drinks. And since you said you were a caffeine addict before, I find it unlikely that you are extra sensitive to it. With the information you have given me so far, I find it much more likely that you became afraid to use caffeine.Haven't you ever had to do something you really didn't want to do?Not without being physically forced to, no.It's just a choice that was too difficult for them to take.I think for some people some choices are so difficult that the distinction between "difficult to choose" and "impossible to choose" becomes so small as to be completely meaningless. Can you 'choose' to drink 2 liters of Jolt Cola? Or is the chance that you make such a choice so vanishingly small that it is no longer a real possibility?

Earthborn

1st June 2005, 09:08 PM

It sounds like you would regard alcoholism as a disease rather than a choice to not stop drinking, is that true?Yes, I do. I also think that is it is what the scientists in the field pretty much agree on.Their central point seemed to be that it isn't a disease if one got the condition by choosing to so something and one can end the condition by choosing to not do that something.A peculiar definition of disease. Certianly not something that will get much acceptance in the medical community.

Is depression a disease? You get it by feeling bad about yourself, and you can end it by stopping to feel bad about yourself.one doesn't have a disease, they have a behavioral problem.That assumes that a behavioural problem can't be a disease. Is the brain the only organ that is immune to disease? Or is it just ridiculous to say that when the brain doesn't function the way it should it isn't diseased, but if the liver doesn't it is? Why make such a distinction?Behavioral problems that are the result of a choice and that can be ended by a choice really shouldn't be called diseases.I don't see why it shouldn't, even if we assume it can be ended by a choice.The choice might be difficult to make and follow through on, but that doesn't make it a disease.It is medical science that defines what is and isn't disease. And it says that it is.

shanek

1st June 2005, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Not quite, because I don't think it excludes the possibility that someone can display behaviours that go directly against one's beliefs or desires.

Acting inconsistently does not invalidate free will.

I do, yes. I also think that many people with compulsive behaviours or thoughts experience their compulsions as something that acts outside of themselves and they cannot control.

That's the "autopilot" effect, and it's considered temporary insanity.

My uncle had OCD; he had to wash his hands incessantly. I can assure you, it was a deliberate action that he felt he had to do and got very agitated when people told him to stop doing it.

There are also a number of neurological disorders that can cause one to exhibit behaviours that seem to have a will of their own, completely outside of one's sense of Free Will, such as Alien Hand Syndrome (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12655).

That falls into the category of what I was talking about above. You're not talking about anything I haven't already disclaimed; you're also not talking about anything relevant to the subject.

I don't see how it relates to the placebo effect.

That's what the placebo effect is: the belief of the patient that the medicine is working.

Okay, that clarification makes sense. Maybe in your case it didn't kick in, the book just gave you negative associations you are reminded of when confronted with caffeine, making you feel sick.

That doesn't explain the occasions where I got sick without having known until later than the drink contained caffeine.

This is all anecdotal, anyway.

Also check out section B, which says that phobias can cause panic attacks, which I have been saying all along. And which is the claim you disputed.

Wrong. Go back and reread what I wrote. It's possible, although far from necessary, for a phobia to trigger the panic attack. Lots of things can be triggers. The fact that not only phobias are triggers invalidates your claim. Again, triggers can be things such as flashing lights. I once knew someone with a panic disorder who wasn't allowed to drive because if she ever encountered a police car or ambulance with its lights flashing it could trigger a siezure.

Not likely in the concentrations found in drinks.

Yes, even in the concentrations found in drinks, to someone who does not have a tolerance for it.

Not without being physically forced to, no.

Then you've either led a very sheltered life or a very selfish one. You've never had to tell someone some piece of bad news, that you just wanted to run away from, but had to tell them anyway? You never had to break up with a guy you really liked because it wasn't working out? You've never had to do anything that was outside the parameters of what you thought should be happening?

I think for some people some choices are so difficult that the distinction between "difficult to choose" and "impossible to choose" becomes so small as to be completely meaningless.

I'm saying that, by definition, "impossible to choose" is when it's considered insanity.

Can you 'choose' to drink 2 liters of Jolt Cola?

I can choose to try. Of course, I'm limited by physics, the size of my stomach, what my stomach will take, etc.

shanek

1st June 2005, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, I do. I also think that is it is what the scientists in the field pretty much agree on.

Actually, the scientists pretty much agree otherwise. The people who are calling alcoholism a "disease" are generally not medical professionals. Here's some good info:

http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook/chap6.html

It is now widely believed that a biological cause of alcoholism has been discovered; some people are said to have a biochemistry or a genetic predisposition that dooms them to be alcoholics if they drink. The truth is less dramatic. There are certain so-called biological markers associated with heavy drinking, but these have not been shown to cause it.

Recent studies have also been said to imply that alcoholism is a hereditary disease. But that is not what the genetic research shows. In the first place, these studies provide no evidence of a genetic factor in the largest group of heavy drinkersâ€”those who have significant associated problems but are not diagnosable as alcoholics. Even among the minority who can be so diagnosed, the data suggest that only a minority have the pertinent genetic background. And even in this category, a minority of a minority, studies report that the majority do not become alcoholics (Goodwin, et al., 1973; Cloninger, et al., 1981; Deitrich and Spuhler, 1984).

The idea of a single disease obscures the scientific consensus that no single cause has ever been established, nor has any biological causal factor ever been shown to be decisive. Heavy drinking has many causes which vary from drinker to drinker, from one drinking pattern to another. Character, motivation, family environment, personal history, ethnic and cultural values, marital, occupational, and educational status all play a role. As these change, so do patterns of drinking, heavy drinking, and "alcoholism" (Fingarette, 1989).

True, alcoholics often resist appeals to cease their alcohol abuse, and they ignore obvious prudential and moral considerations. The simplistic explanation that attributes this to an irresistible craving obscures a more complicated reality: they have developed a way of life in which they use drinking as a major strategy for coping with their problems (Fingarette, 1989). They have become accustomed to values, friends, settings, and beliefs that protect and encourage drinking. When they encounter drastically changed circumstances in a hospital, clinic, or communal group, they are capable of following different rules. Even some who "cheat" where abstention is expected nevertheless limit their drinking (Paredes et al., 1973). They do not automatically lose control because of a few drinks. Our focus on attention must shift from drinking per se to the meaning of drink for certain persons and the way of life in which its role has become central.

Responsible scientists who are familiar with the research but want to preserve the disease concept of alcoholism have had to redefine their terms. They define "disease" as whatever doctors choose to call a disease (Jellinek, 1960)! The point of using the word, they acknowledge, is "social" rather than medical. There is a lack of consistent self-control that leads to harmful consequences (Vaillant, 1990). Of course such sweeping uses of the temm make almost every human and social problem into a "disease."

When behavior is labeled a disease, it becomes excusable because it is regarded as involuntary. This is an important reason for its promulgation. Thus special benefits are provided to alcoholics in employment, health, and civil rights law, provided they can prove that theirdrinking is persistent and very heavy. The effect is to reward people who continue to drink heavily. This policy is insidious precisely because it is well intended, and those who criticize it may seem to lack compassion.

But the greatest scandal of the argument for the disease concept as a useful lie is the claim that it helps alcoholics by inducing them to enter treatment. On the contrary, both independent and government research shows expensive disease-oriented treatment programs to be largely a waste of money and human resources (Fingarette, 1989). Their apparent success proves illusory when they are compared in statistically rigorous studies with other programs, and with the rate of improvement in untreated alcohol abusers (which is a much higher rate than the disease concept has led the public to believe).

Is depression a disease? You get it by feeling bad about yourself, and you can end it by stopping to feel bad about yourself.

There is all the difference in the world between something you do and something you feel.

It is medical science that defines what is and isn't disease. And it says that it is.

No, it doesn't.

Underemployed

2nd June 2005, 12:57 AM

OK. Deep breath. Big post. Lots of research done.

Firstly, we have sidetracked into the topic of the nature of addiction. This is relevant to the OP, because inadequate or non-existent regulation, as I will show, increases the possible number of addicts through free market principles.

Originally posted by Teabag420
Isn't that the free market response to everything?

You might say it is obvious, and I may agree strongly with you, but we must provide proof in this forum rather than just claim something to be true.

So, addiction!
I submit the following links:
Heroin Addiction (http://www.healthboards.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-9149.html)

Breaking the Addiction (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/coldturkey.htm):
"Withdrawal symptoms vary between drugs, but for the opiates (such as heroin) they can be severe and physically dangerous. About eight to twelve hours after the last heroin use, an addict's eyes begin to tear and he/she starts to experience flu-like symptoms: sneezing, weakness, depression, muscle cramps, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, increasing in severity and lasting for a week to ten days. Goose bumps and muscle spasms in the legs are also common symptoms. The physical strain of the withdrawal process can be fatal, particularly if patients have weak hearts (or have been weakened by their addiction), which is why a gradual approach to withdrawal is almost universally advocated by doctors"
(more on going 'cold turkey' (http://www.drugs-info.co.uk/drugpages/heroin/heroin.htm#coldturky)

Some testimony from users (http://www.somazone.com.au/content.asp?document_id=162)
(Read the comments after the main text)

These are limited sources, and there are certainly counter-examples, but the evidence tends to lean towards Shanek's interpretation, at least in that you can choose to break the addiction. The bad news is that it doesn't seem to happen much, and many addicts will 'give up' more than once, only to fall back into regular drug abuse. High rates of recidivism are only averted with concerted effort from support groups and the support of friends and family, though users do manage on their own.

Originally posted by Valmorian
[...]anyone can beat any addiction by simply choosing to not indulge in it? What reason do I have to accept this assertion?

I strongly urge you to read the testimony mentioned above from the last link, then attempt to find some that refutes it. You will see that addicts can and do choose to give up, but are typically prone to re-addiction because of their social circumstances. This does not disprove the choice assertion.

Whether or not you call this addiction a 'disease' is irrelevant. The methods for creating it and 'curing' oneself of it are the same.

We can therefore say that drug addiction is a very real physical fact, but ridding yourself of this addiction is possible for most addicts under the right circumstances - and that outside help is a big factor for all but the strongest-willed. How does this affect our answer to Davefoc's question?

Underemployed

2nd June 2005, 12:58 AM

I have stated previously that complete deregulation is undesireable, citing the historic example of the Opium Wars. The increase of drug abuse following the opening of China's market to Opium traders had a deletorious effect on the nation. This example is not ideal, as the market for opium as an appetite suppressant was inflated due to a widespread shortage of food at the time.

Lets have a look at another case where an addictive drug was freely traded, even though many in authority disapproved and was found early on to be bad for you.

From Historian.org (http://www.historian.org/bysubject/tobacco1.htm), the introduction of tobacco to the world at large:

1586 Tobacco Arrives in English Society
1602 'Worke of Chimney Sweepers' states that illness of chimney sweepers is caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects
1610 Sir Francis Bacon writes that tobacco use is increasing and that it is a custom hard to quit.
1624 Pope threatens excommunication for snuff users; sneezing is thought too close to sexual ecstasy
1634 Czar Alexis creates penalties for smoking: 1st offense is whipping, a slit nose, and trasportation to Siberia. 2nd offense is execution; Greek Church claims that it was tobacco smoke that intoxicated Noah and so bans tobacco use
1665 Samuel Pepys describes a Royal Society experiment in which a cat quickly dies when fed "a drop of distilled oil of tobacco."
1761 John Hill performs perhaps first clinical study of tobacco effects, warns snuff users they are vulnerable to cancers of the nose.
1795 Sammuel Thomas von Soemmering of Maine reports on cancers of the lip in pipe smokers
1828 Heidelberg students Ludwig Reimann and Wilhelm Heinrich Posselt write exhaustive dissertations on the pharmacology of nicotine, concluding it is a "dangerous poison."
1892 Reformers petition Congress to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes. The Senate Committee on Epidemic Diseases, while agreeing that cigarettes are a public health hazard, finds that only the states have the authority to act.
1912 Dr. I. Adler is the first to strongly suggest that lung cancer is related to smoking in a monograph.

(Among the other gems are the shocking news that outreageous state taxes on tobacco are nothing new, Marlboro started life as a British brand, and that the large-scale cultivation of tobacco in the US was arguably a prime factor in the rise of slave ownership.)

Note that the countries with the strongest commercial ties to tobacco consumption never considered banning the substance; this was left to those lands with no financial interest in the trade. Smoking tobacco was eventually universally accepted as the potential tax revenues became too large to ignore or, to view the governments more charitably, when it became impractical to maintain the ban.

See also that as early as 1682 the dangers were first theorised. In 1762 we see the first tobacco/cancer link publicly recognised. I leave you to read for yourself the entries for the rest of the 20th Century, which give a quick overview of how much the companies responsible for tobacco production knew about their product, and their response.

There are other examples on smaller scales - cocaine, for one - which echo the two I provide here. They illustrate the folly of allowing profit-driven companies to provide addictive substances (unless you do not mind a large proprtion of your society being addicted to drugs, which is the subject for another topic).

So we have historical evidence that complete deregualtion is undesireable, assuming the aim is to minimise the number of addicts.

We have contemporary evidence, in the form of Holland's drug experience as provided by Earthborn, that decriminalising drug users and providing serious funding for rehab, results in fewer new users and more exisitng users coming off their addiction.

There is also overwhelming historical and contemporary evidence that prohibition is ineffectual.

I have drawn my conclusions, you draw yours.

Earthborn

2nd June 2005, 04:32 AM

That's the "autopilot" effect, and it's considered temporary insanity.You have said that insanity means that a person is unable to understand the consequences of their behaviour. In this case someone can, they just don't have control over it.I can assure you, it was a deliberate action that he felt he had to do and got very agitated when people told him to stop doing it.He probably got very agitated when told to stop, because he knew he had no real control over it.You're not talking about anything I haven't already disclaimed; you're also not talking about anything relevant to the subject.I think I am. You have claimed that 'there is always a choice'. I'm trying to show you that sometimes there isn't.That's what the placebo effect is: the belief of the patient that the medicine is working.It has nothing to do with that at all. The belief of the patient is irrelevant. My example deals with a medicine that definitely works and affects the patients behaviour in such a way that he makes appropriate decisions.The fact that not only phobias are triggers invalidates your claim.I have never claimed that phobias are the only things that can trigger panic attacks. I have claimed that extreme phobias very likely trigger panic attacks, making it impossible for someone to just 'suck up' their fear and do what they are afraid of.Yes, even in the concentrations found in drinks, to someone who does not have a tolerance for it.And you want me to believe that you lost that tolerance just after you read a book about possible effects of caffeine? Just by coincidence?You've never had to tell someone some piece of bad news, that you just wanted to run away from, but had to tell them anyway?If I feel I have to tell someone something, then I want to tell that. I may not want to tell it very much, but it is certainly not something I 'really don't want to'.You never had to break up with a guy you really liked because it wasn't working out?Uhm... No. I don't make a habit of stepping into relationships I'm not absolutely sure they will work out. I'm single and definitely no searching... :)You've never had to do anything that was outside the parameters of what you thought should be happening?No. Either I want to do something, or I can convince myself that it should be happening. Otherwise you'll need to physically force me to do it.I'm saying that, by definition, "impossible to choose" is when it's considered insanity.You have said that 'there's always a choice'. Are you now retracting that claim?Of course, I'm limited by physics, the size of my stomach, what my stomach will take, etc.Exactly. Which means that there is not always a choice.

Earthborn

2nd June 2005, 04:50 AM

The people who are calling alcoholism a "disease" are generally not medical professionals.That is not how I read it. It seems to me that this guy is saying that the disease model of alcoholism is very widespread even among researchers of addiction. He just criticises that model.

The first three paragraphs you quote are completely irrelevant. Just because no one has found a direct genetic cause does not mean it is not a disease. And that it is not a single disease but likely several ones is not relevant either.

The fourth paragraph you quote is in my opinion not very important to the discussion. Just because someone has fewer problems in a different environment does not mean it is not a disease. It may just mean environmental factors have an influence on the way the disease manifests itself. Hardly a revelation.

The Fifth paragraph (in the same quote) mentions that the term 'disease' is socially defined. It fails to explain to me why that is problematic.

The sixth paragraph you quote is a matter of opinion. In the seventh the guy cites his own research, which we can't check right now.There is all the difference in the world between something you do and something you feel.Explain what the difference is.Originally posted by Underemployed
We have contemporary evidence, in the form of Holland's drug experience as provided by Earthborn, that decriminalising drug users and providing serious funding for rehab, results in fewer new users and more exisitng users coming off their addiction.I haven't said anything about new users or the effect of decriminalisation of very addictive substances. I have only mentioned the policy of tolerance of marijuana and a program where a very limited group of long term addicts got heroin prescribed. For everybody else it is still illegal to use heroin.

The heroin program is not very successful in getting people off their addiction, because that's not its intended purpose. It happened to a few people who haven't been able to kick their habit earlier, but it is not something that should be overstated. It may not even be an effect of the program at all, if we assume addictions can sometimes display spontaneous remission.

shanek

2nd June 2005, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Underemployed
Breaking the Addiction (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/coldturkey.htm):
"Withdrawal symptoms vary between drugs, but for the opiates (such as heroin) they can be severe and physically dangerous. About eight to twelve hours after the last heroin use, an addict's eyes begin to tear and he/she starts to experience flu-like symptoms: sneezing, weakness, depression, muscle cramps, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, increasing in severity and lasting for a week to ten days. Goose bumps and muscle spasms in the legs are also common symptoms. The physical strain of the withdrawal process can be fatal, particularly if patients have weak hearts (or have been weakened by their addiction), which is why a gradual approach to withdrawal is almost universally advocated by doctors"

Unfortunately, the current drug war prevents just this sort of treatment. Doctors are not allowed to get and prescribe these drugs for any reason, even helping people beat a drug addiction. (Man, that is way pothead behavior, to quote Penn Jillette.)

I have stated previously that complete deregulation is undesireable, citing the historic example of the Opium Wars. The increase of drug abuse following the opening of China's market to Opium traders had a deletorious effect on the nation. This example is not ideal, as the market for opium as an appetite suppressant was inflated due to a widespread shortage of food at the time.

It's more complex than that. Here's a good summary of the histry of the Opium Wars:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn005.htm

I don't see how this could be said to be any kind of argument against government intervention.

So we have historical evidence that complete deregualtion is undesireable, assuming the aim is to minimise the number of addicts.

You have done nothing to show that the rate of addiction is lower with any kind of regulation. So your facts do not support your conclusion.

shanek

2nd June 2005, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
You have said that insanity means that a person is unable to understand the consequences of their behaviour. In this case someone can, they just don't have control over it.

Same thing. In either case, they are unable to apply the understanding to the action.

He probably got very agitated when told to stop, because he knew he had no real control over it.

:rolleyes:

I think I am. You have claimed that 'there is always a choice'. I'm trying to show you that sometimes there isn't.

All along I've disclaimed insanity from that. As I said, you aren't saying anything that contradicts what I am.

It has nothing to do with that at all. The belief of the patient is irrelevant.

Ahem: "He will start to believe early on that he can beat the disease...The patient starts to believe he can beat the disease..." If it's irrelevant, why did you keep bringing it up?

Real medical cures work regardless of the patient's belief in them.

I have never claimed that phobias are the only things that can trigger panic attacks. I have claimed that extreme phobias very likely trigger panic attacks,

And I have shown that anything can be a trigger to a panic attack. We aren't talking about panic attacks; that's a different thing entirely and this is just a red herring.

And you want me to believe that you lost that tolerance just after you read a book about possible effects of caffeine?

I never said anything of the kind. I lost the tolerance after being off of caffeine for several weeks.

Uhm... No. I don't make a habit of stepping into relationships I'm not absolutely sure they will work out.

You can't know if a relationship will work out unless you step into it first.

You have said that 'there's always a choice'. Are you now retracting that claim?

No, because all along I have mentioned insanity as an exception.

That is not how I read it. It seems to me that this guy is saying that the disease model of alcoholism is very widespread even among researchers of addiction. He just criticises that model.

The first three paragraphs you quote are completely irrelevant.[/b]

He is debunking the reasons why people say it's an addiction.

Just because no one has found a direct genetic cause does not mean it is not a disease.

But it does mean that those who claim it's a disease based on genetics are making unfounded claims.

The fourth paragraph you quote is in my opinion not very important to the discussion.

Showing that it's a lifestyle choice is very important to the discussion, just as showing that it's less likely they'll get off the stuff if they maintain that lifestyle.

The Fifth paragraph (in the same quote) mentions that the term 'disease' is socially defined. It fails to explain to me why that is problematic.

You don't see the fact that they're using any objective scientific definition as a problem?

The sixth paragraph you quote is a matter of opinion.

Nice dismissal...

In the seventh the guy cites his own research, which we can't check right now.

You're given the source. And it comes from "both independent and government research" so I don't see the point in harping about how it's "his own" research; he's citing a work he did examining the established research in the field.

Explain what the difference is.

You're in complete control of what you do; you're not in control of what you feel. As the line from Lawrence of Arabia goes, "A man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants."

Underemployed

2nd June 2005, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Shanek
You have done nothing to show that the rate of addiction is lower with any kind of regulation

From the article you cited:

Pre-Opium Wars
[circa 1800-1816] ...about 240 tons were imported yearly. By 1836, imports had risen to more than 2,000 tons

Post Opium Wars
By 1860, imports from India had reached almost 4,000 tons

Now, you could argue that this dramatic increase would have happened anyway, and you could be right. We don't know because we don't have the data. Nonetheless, we can certainly see that the opening up of China's market to unrestricted Opium sales did not curb use of the drug.

As you pointed out, it's a lot more complicated than that, which is why I highlighted tobacco use as well. Here we can see that increased awareness of the inherent health dangers, rather than government prohibition (although high taxes are a factor), have reduced the use of tobacco. That it took so long for the dangers to be publicly accepted is a testament not only to the horror of the profit motive, but to the whole of society's collective wish to hide unpalatable truths under the carpet.

Increased regulation in Ireland - Falling cigarette sales (http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0909/smoking)

Now, it's worth mentioning at this point that my personal take on the matter has gone full circle so far. I started out pushing complete deregulation, then looked into the history of human narcotic use and thought that it was too dangerous a trade to be left to the free market. I still maintain this view, largely because the business world has shown on numerous occasions that it is not ready to responsibly sell chemically addictive products to the consumer. I don't have enough faith in libertarian principles just yet.

Underemployed

2nd June 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I haven't said anything about new users or the effect of decriminalisation

You're quite right, I was reading more into your statements than was there, I apologise.

Checking it out, it seems the Netherlands policy is far less tolerant than most people realise. There is tacit approval of marijuana use (and the small-scale sale thereof), which has resulted in lower overall marijuana use compared to the USA (see here (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm) and here (http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm)). However, the approach to so-called 'hard' drugs (which covers pretty much all other drugs proscribed by governments the world over) is no different to the rest of the EU or USA - yet the numbers show that use of these is also lower per capita than the USA. The reasons for this are sadly far from clear, but the increased weight given to rehabilitation for users may well be a factor.

shanek

2nd June 2005, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Underemployed Now, you could argue that this dramatic increase would have happened anyway, and you could be right. We don't know because we don't have the data. Nonetheless, we can certainly see that the opening up of China's market to unrestricted Opium sales did not curb use of the drug.[/b]

Neither did prohibition. Nor does our current War on Drugs. It seems that people who are going to take drugs are going to take drugs, and no amount of mommying by the government can change that.

As you pointed out, it's a lot more complicated than that, which is why I highlighted tobacco use as well. Here we can see that increased awareness of the inherent health dangers, rather than government prohibition (although high taxes are a factor), have reduced the use of tobacco. That it took so long for the dangers to be publicly accepted is a testament not only to the horror of the profit motive, but to the whole of society's collective wish to hide unpalatable truths under the carpet.

Have you got a better solution? Preferably one that works? You've just admitted that non-regulation works, albeit very slowly.

I still maintain this view, largely because the business world has shown on numerous occasions that it is not ready to responsibly sell chemically addictive products to the consumer.

You mean, like caffeine?

username

2nd June 2005, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, I do. I also think that is it is what the scientists in the field pretty much agree on.A peculiar definition of disease. Certianly not something that will get much acceptance in the medical community.

What part of the medical community are you refering to? On the Penn and Teller episode I mentioned they talked about Supreme Court cases where the court held that the evidence was against alcoholism being a disease.

As I understand it the "medical community" debates amongst itself whether it is appropriate to call alcoholism a disease. The soft sciences like psychology call it a disease, but then again they call everything a disease. The hard sciences do not consider alcoholism a disease because there is a lack of evidence that there is anything abnormal about the alcoholic other than they make the choice to drink when it causes problems. No genetic link, no brain chemistry abnormality, nothing to distinguish the alcoholic from the sober person.

To call something a disease there has to be an abnormality of some sort in the brain/body. What is the body/brain abnormality in the alcoholic?

Is depression a disease? You get it by feeling bad about yourself, and you can end it by stopping to feel bad about yourself.That assumes that a behavioural problem can't be a disease. Is the brain the only organ that is immune to disease? Or is it just ridiculous to say that when the brain doesn't function the way it should it isn't diseased, but if the liver doesn't it is? Why make such a distinction?

In the case of clinical depression there is a brain abnormality, often hormonal. That is why serotonin is targeted by SSRI meds given to those showing symptoms of clinical depression. There is no similar abnormality for alcoholics that has been detected.

I don't see why it shouldn't, even if we assume it can be ended by a choice.It is medical science that defines what is and isn't disease. And it says that it is.

I really think you are mistaken on this point. I do not believe medical science accepts that alcoholism is a disease. The science demands that there be an abnormality of brain/body before it can be labeled a disease. Again, the soft sciences like psychology will call it a disease, but psychology is more woo woo than science.

I really respect you and your intelligence, I enjoy reading what you write as you are very articulate. I am kind of surprised you would regard alcoholism as a disease when it doesn't meet the criteria, but that's life I guess.

Mason

2nd June 2005, 11:51 PM

Over the years here there have been a number of threads that have discussed the advantages and disadvantages or more or less regulation of the drugs commonly used recreationally.

This question is a little different. Suppose that the state imposed no restrictions whatsoever on the buyers and sellers of drugs. What would happen?

Not to derail or anything. ;)

I'd like to look more at the recreational drugs, since the post turned out longer than I'd expected...

Companies are already set up to distribute marijuanna. RJ Reynolds, Phillip Morris, etc. already make and distribute cigarettes, so they're pretty well set up for weed, as well. All they really need to do is switch the leaves they're feeding through the machines. Well, maybe just a bit more, but that's the nutshell. ;) At first wind of a real lifting of the bans, they'd have their scientists working out the best formulas to turn weed into a pack-a-day industry (or whatever their target might be). They'll try to find the best combination of plants to produce the high that keeps you functional and coming back for more.

Weed dealers on the streets simply won't be able to compete. The prices the tobacco industries will be able to offer will make it simply not worth the time or effort for dealers. They'd need to sell it by the garbage bag for $20 a bag to undercut the corporations.

Heavier drugs will find similar homes. The new addition to the Excederin family will be Excederin White, with .1 grams of coke per tablet, sold in boxes of 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, or 1000. Need that little pick-me-up in the morning? Vivarin is nice, but "Vivarin Extra" Can pick you up, fly you to work, and park your car before your coffee is done brewing. At $5 for a box of 100, what drug dealer could even try competing?

Some drugs won't make it to the shelves, I'd guess. Heroin, for example, probably won't be on the shelf with a one-shot syringe and a disposable tin spoon. On the other hand, how much demand will there be when other drugs are so readliy available and so cheap? Most junkies bounce around until they find their drug of choice, but in the absence of their favorite, few will turn down a lesser substitute. Once that lesser substitute is available in most purses, medicine cabinets, or glove compartments, it'll simply be too easy to stick to the OTC stuff and let go of the more preferred stuff.

So, with widespread usage and availability, how bad will non-functional addiction become? I'm not talking about the "I need my two Super No-Dozes in the morning or I'm worthless until lunchtime" addict, but the "Gimme your wallet or I'll shoot you in the head" junkie, the kind who can't hold down a job, pay the rent, or find Waldo on the first few pages. Well, Like tobacco and alcohol, I'd expect minor regulations such as age limits for purchase, companies regulating usage at work, etc.

In other words, regulations on current "questionable" drugs would simply extend to the new breed. People who are raised to understand that they can't go to work drunk, or can't smoke inside the building would still be in the habit of such behaviour. The current generation already functions just fine with these social limitations, so could we reasonably expect the next generation to function just as well with their list of "legal, but not encouraged" drugs extended? We're all used to the hyper co-workers who drink too much coffee in the morning, would it be that much different if he blew two lines instead of sucking back two double espressos?

Probably not. We already know how much coffee we can drink before we can't think straight, simply because a cup of coffee is a cup of coffee, pretty much everywhere. We grew up with it in the house, nobody told us we couldn't drink it, but people would tell us "Hey, haven't you had too much?" and we can figure out that that third cup is more than we can handle. By the time we graduate high school, we'd be able to know our limits on coke, weed, percosets, or whatever, because such things will have been there all of our lives. A Vivarin Extra will be the same dosage as a Super No-Doze or the Walgreen's Wake-Up Deluxe. We'll know that two pills will carry us to lunch, three if we were out all night, but four is just too much. There won't be such a thing as over-cut or under-cut coke, making it much safer to learn your presonal dosage through trial and error, especially with mom's guidance.

But the junkies!!

Okay, it's cheap, it's everywhere, and it's legal. What's to stop everyone from turning into catatonic zombies glued to their playstations until they die of starvation? Probably the same thing that currently stops them. Lifting a law doesn't mean the government is going to lobotomize every individual in the country to remove every last bit of common sense we have left. Smokers regulate themselves again and again every time the rules change. Drinkers change their habits every time new laws are passed or old ones are reenforced. In the interim, they manage to remain functional members of society. Adding a few substances to the mix shouldn't change acceptable levels of productivity within companies, and people will learn to meet those level while enjoying their recreational drug usage just like they currently do. As company policies change, people will adjust their habits. Just like they do now.

The difference? Propaganda will be more capable of helping people with a problem, since treatment won't involve breaking laws. Alcoholics can get help, smokers can buy the patch, coffee drinkers can get a second job to occupy their nights, junkies go to jail and get ass raped until they realize they don't need drugs anymore.... Wait, lemme rephrase that...

Without the social stigma associated with the term "junkie", addicts can get help through friends, relatives, coworkers, finding jeezis, or any number of other channels. People can admit if they have a problem, and guess what? The rest of the country will be able to understand their plight because they've all been users for their entire lives. They can give casual advise such as "Try switching from Marlboro Greens to Camel Smooths. It helped me cut down" or "Only take one Vivarin Extra in the morning, but wash it down with a cup of coffee.", you know, little tricks other people have learned to help regulate their own usage.

This is going on forever, but the point is, basically, that legal drugs should have little more impact than legal alcohol already has. Some will not be able to handle it, the rest of the people will deal just fine, if just a little shakey for the first year or three of the integration.

Oh, and crime, prisoners, budget issues, etc. I think these things can be inferred from what I've already said, assuming I've said anything that makes sense in the first place. :p

Earthborn

3rd June 2005, 03:53 AM

On the Penn and Teller episode I mentioned they talked about Supreme Court cases where the court held that the evidence was against alcoholism being a disease.I didn't know such things were decided in the courtroom.The soft sciences like psychology call it a diseasePsychology is the study of human behaviour. Addiction is a behavioural problem. So if psychology considers addiction a disease, I don't see that as a problem. Here (http://www.tgorski.com/gorski_articles/disease_model_of_addiction_010704.htm) is a nice summary of the reasons to consider it a disease.The hard sciences do not consider alcoholism a disease Which hard sciences have any say in what is disease? Physics? Mathematics? Medicine is an inexact science and it will always be an inexact science.To call something a disease there has to be an abnormality of some sort in the brain/body. What is the body/brain abnormality in the alcoholic?Disease is not defined by being able to pinpoint an identifiable cause. If it was, diseases with an unknown cause couldn't exist. Disease is defined by identifiable symptoms, and alcoholics display allsorts of symptoms caused by their longterm alcohol use.In the case of clinical depression there is a brain abnormality, often hormonal.Or it has to do with neurotransmitters. There is of course quite a bit of controversy over whether these abnormalities are cause or effect of the depression. The same can be said of the brain damage found in alcoholics. It is hard to figure out which damage is caused by the alcohol exposure and which damage caused the person to abuse alcohol in the first place. It may even be true that alcohol damaged the brain in such a way that the person loses control over his/her alcohol use.That is why serotonin is targeted by SSRI meds given to those showing symptoms of clinical depression.Interestingly, obsessive compulsive disorder, anorexia/bulimia and even addiction are often treated in the exact same way! Many neuropsychiatrists consider all these to be the same disease expressed in different ways: the serotonine spectrum. It is not hard to see many similarities between them: depression can seen as compulsively having negative thoughts, or being addicted to negative thoughts, obsessive compulsive behaviour is like an addiction to specific acts, anorexia/bulimia might be considered an addiction to starving oneself, or a compulsion not to eat. All of them including addiction are often accompanied with low self esteem and feelings of misery, like depression. So all these have characteristics that are also found (to varying degrees) in all the others.I do not believe medical science accepts that alcoholism is a disease.You can believe anything you want, I guess.Again, the soft sciences like psychology will call it a disease, but psychology is more woo woo than science.Some schools of psychology are definitely woo, but not all of them. And it should be noted that since psychology is the study of human behaviour, it is the only science that can define alcoholism as a disease or not.I am kind of surprised you would regard alcoholism as a disease when it doesn't meet the criteriaI don't see which reasonable criteria for disease it doesn't meet. Is drinking until organ failure not an 'abnormality of the brain/body' ?

shanek

3rd June 2005, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Mason
Weed dealers on the streets simply won't be able to compete. The prices the tobacco industries will be able to offer will make it simply not worth the time or effort for dealers.

Unless, of course, the government taxes the bejeezus out of it.

Some drugs won't make it to the shelves, I'd guess. Heroin, for example, probably won't be on the shelf with a one-shot syringe and a disposable tin spoon.

It could always take its old form. Bayer once sold heroin as a pain reliever and cough suppressant for children, before it was made illegal.

I'm not talking about the "I need my two Super No-Dozes in the morning or I'm worthless until lunchtime" addict, but the "Gimme your wallet or I'll shoot you in the head" junkie, the kind who can't hold down a job, pay the rent, or find Waldo on the first few pages.

I think that's largely a cliché anyway. I suspect these junkies are the ones who already have problems holding down a job etc. even without the drugs. There have been plenty of people on drugs who lead productive lives.

Lifting a law doesn't mean the government is going to lobotomize every individual in the country to remove every last bit of common sense we have left. Smokers regulate themselves again and again every time the rules change.

Smoking is actually a very good example of how knowing the nature of drug addiction and use reveals how government action just makes things worse. In the 1950s, cigarette manufacturers (with no prompting from government) started making their cigarettes safer, with low tar, better filters, etc. One of the things they did was increase the amount of nicotine in each cigarette. The government, prompted by the anti-smoking lobby, jumped all over the cigarette companies who were "deliberately lacing" their cigarettes to make them "more addictive" etc.

Of course, anyone who understands how addiction works knows that your body craves a certain amount of the drug, and once that amount is reached, the craving stops. A cigarette smoker might smoke one, two, five, three-and-a-half, or however many cigarettes he needs until he gets his fix. While he's smoking, he's also getting the tar and other junk that's in the cigarette, many of which are unhealthy, even carcinogenic, chemicals. If you increase the amount of nicotine in the cigarette, the smoker smokes fewer cigarettes. So he's getting the same amount of nicotine, but less of the tar and other chemicals. High-nicotine cigarettes are safer.

Of course, try telling some people, including some on this very board, that and they get very abusive, not wanting to admit the truth as it means giving up a part of their agenda. But the fact is, by tring to make cigarettes safer, government just made the situation worse. As it always does.

shanek

3rd June 2005, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Disease is not defined by being able to pinpoint an identifiable cause. If it was, diseases with an unknown cause couldn't exist. Disease is defined by identifiable symptoms, and alcoholics display allsorts of symptoms caused by their longterm alcohol use.

There are many identificable "symptoms" of being a Star Trek fan. Is being a Star Trek fan a disease?

You can believe anything you want, I guess.

Especially since that's what the evidence shows.

Is drinking until organ failure not an 'abnormality of the brain/body' ?

What about voting Republican until you're taxed to death? Gotta be some kind of "brain abnormality" going on there...

kimiko

3rd June 2005, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by shanek
You're in complete control of what you do; you're not in control of what you feel. As the line from Lawrence of Arabia goes, "A man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants." Depression and anxiety are both feelings dependent. Depression you feel "sad", anxiety you feel anxious. Either neither type of sufferer has control over their feelings or they both do.

And you can buy caffeine in powder form quite easily, so it isn't simply drink manufacturers' self governing agreements that prevent misuse. It is such an inexpensive substance already, there is no indication it will be cut with other things for higher profits.

shanek

3rd June 2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by kimiko
Depression and anxiety are both feelings dependent. Depression you feel "sad", anxiety you feel anxious. Either neither type of sufferer has control over their feelings or they both do.

I never said they had control of their feelings; only their actions.

And you can buy caffeine in powder form quite easily, so it isn't simply drink manufacturers' self governing agreements that prevent misuse. It is such an inexpensive substance already, there is no indication it will be cut with other things for higher profits.

Funny; that's exactly how it was with heroin and cocaine back when they were legal.

username

3rd June 2005, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I didn't know such things were decided in the courtroom.

The case had something to with people claiming they had the disease of alcoholism and thus weren't responsible for their actions. The court ruled that they didn't believe the evidence showed alcoholism was a disease therefore the claim had no basis.

Psychology is the study of human behaviour. Addiction is a behavioural problem. So if psychology considers addiction a disease, I don't see that as a problem.

Well given the huge tome of normal, everyday things that psychology labels as a disease I hope you can forgive me for not taking it very seriously. The whole crying wolf thing comes to mind.

Here (http://www.tgorski.com/gorski_articles/disease_model_of_addiction_010704.htm) is a nice summary of the reasons to consider it a disease.Which hard sciences have any say in what is disease? Physics? Mathematics? Medicine is an inexact science and it will always be an inexact science.Disease is not defined by being able to pinpoint an identifiable cause. If it was, diseases with an unknown cause couldn't exist. Disease is defined by identifiable symptoms, and alcoholics display allsorts of symptoms caused by their longterm alcohol use.

The trouble is that the symptoms of alcoholism are self induced. This distinguishes it from a disease which has a "life" of it's own. The depressed person doesn't self induce a depression nor do folks suffering other mental illnesses. The person suffering from mental illness frequently improves with medication. The alcoholic doesn't get medication.

Or it has to do with neurotransmitters. There is of course quite a bit of controversy over whether these abnormalities are cause or effect of the depression. The same can be said of the brain damage found in alcoholics. It is hard to figure out which damage is caused by the alcohol exposure and which damage caused the person to abuse alcohol in the first place. It may even be true that alcohol damaged the brain in such a way that the person loses control over his/her alcohol use.

I wouldn't think this would be too difficult. I would think a simple before and after test would suffice. I believe studies have done on families exploring a genetic/physical link for alcoholism and none was found.

Interestingly, obsessive compulsive disorder, anorexia/bulimia and even addiction are often treated in the exact same way! Many neuropsychiatrists consider all these to be the same disease expressed in different ways: the serotonine spectrum. It is not hard to see many similarities between them: depression can seen as compulsively having negative thoughts, or being addicted to negative thoughts, obsessive compulsive behaviour is like an addiction to specific acts, anorexia/bulimia might be considered an addiction to starving oneself, or a compulsion not to eat. All of them including addiction are often accompanied with low self esteem and feelings of misery, like depression. So all these have characteristics that are also found (to varying degrees) in all the others.

Well then let's get folks out of AA and onto prozac and see if we can better the current 5% success rate for treatment.

You can believe anything you want, I guess.Some schools of psychology are definitely woo, but not all of them. And it should be noted that since psychology is the study of human behaviour, it is the only science that can define alcoholism as a disease or not.I don't see which reasonable criteria for disease it doesn't meet. Is drinking until organ failure not an 'abnormality of the brain/body' ?

Actually the term disease has a scientific definition and it requires an abnormality that causes the symptom. When sources try and justify labeling alcoholism as a disease they play semantic games. They say, this person does have an abnormality, it is drinking. So both the abnormality and the symtom are one in the same- drinking. That is a behavior, not an abnormality. I do not believe it has ever been shown that a physical abnormality of the brain or body leads to alcoholism. This is why I do not consider it a disease. Those who speculate that there might be an abnormality, we just haven't found it yet are simply speculating. It is entirely possible a true abnormality will be found in which case it should take too long before someone makes a pill to treat it. Until that abnormality is found though I can't see labeling a behavior as a disease.

The trouble with psychology in this respect and even psychiatry is that they have a lot to gain from having alcoholism accepted as a disease. Then it gets forced into health care plans by government and the psychs of the world see a huge boost in their revenue stream. More woo sessions and pill prescriptions for the industry.

To date the best treatment we have for alcoholism is allowing a person to hit rock bottom and decide they wish to quit.

That isn't true of mental or physical disease.

Earthborn

3rd June 2005, 07:20 PM

Well given the huge tome of normal, everyday things that psychology labels as a disease I hope you can forgive me for not taking it very seriously.What normal, everyday things has psychology labelled as a disease?

(Remember: psychology does recognise that many mental disorders are pathologically exaggerated normal behaviours. But that's not the same as saying that normal behaviours are diseases.)The trouble is that the symptoms of alcoholism are self induced.That's irrelevant. It makes no difference whether it is 'self induced'. If you are sick, you are sick, whether you caused your own sickness or not.The depressed person doesn't self induce a depression nor do folks suffering other mental illnesses.That's what you say. There are more than enough people who do claim that depression is self-induced, that it is not a real disease and that people just need to snap out of it. I met some of them on this very discussion board. They use pretty much the same arguments as you and Shanek do for claiming that addiction is not a real disease.I wouldn't think this would be too difficult. I would think a simple before and after test would suffice.Please explain how you would set up a test like that.I believe studies have done on families exploring a genetic/physical link for alcoholism and none was found.Why don't you use Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=genetics+alcoholism&hl=en&lr=&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-40,RNWE:en&start=0&sa=N) to find such a study? Looks to me that most of those studies do seem to indicate a genetic link though.Well then let's get folks out of AA and onto prozac and see if we can better the current 5% success rate for treatment.Sounds like a smashing idea to me!So both the abnormality and the symtom are one in the same- drinking.Not quite. Not all problematic drinking is alcoholism. Read T. Gorski's article I linked to above again if you have to. The symptoms include many biomedical complications caused by alcohol abuse. So the 'abnormality that caused it' is alcohol, the symptoms include organ failure.

Some scientists theorise that the abuse of alcohol causes damage to the brain making it very hard or impossible to further control the use of it. Something similar may be true of anorexia/bulimia as well: the disease may be caused by starving oneself. As I've said earlier, what is effect and what is the cause is not so straightforward. In many cases there are likely inherent abnormalities that start the destructive behaviour in the first place, while many of its symptoms are caused by the results of the behaviour.That is a behavior, not an abnormality.A behaviour can be abnormal, can it not?Those who speculate that there might be an abnormality, we just haven't found it yet are simply speculating. It is entirely possible a true abnormality will be found in which case it should take too long before someone makes a pill to treat it. Until that abnormality is found though I can't see labeling a behavior as a disease.A strange position to take, in my opinion. For millions of years people have been able to recognise disease, even if they were unable to know the abnormality that ultimately caused it. Why demand that such an ultimate cause is found before calling it a disease? We might as well claim there are no diseases at all.The trouble with psychology in this respect and even psychiatry is that they have a lot to gain from having alcoholism accepted as a disease. Then it gets forced into health care plans by government and the psychs of the world see a huge boost in their revenue stream. More woo sessions and pill prescriptions for the industry.That's life in a modern world, I guess. You are probably right that the healthcare industry has a lot to gain from labelling as much as they can as a disease. As the conspiracy nuts always claim, they don't want us to be cured, they just want to make us dependent. I think that conspiracy theory may even have a grain of truth, I just don't consider it necessarily a problem.To date the best treatment we have for alcoholism is allowing a person to hit rock bottom and decide they wish to quit.

That isn't true of mental or physical disease.With many mental and still some physical diseases, there isn't that much more that can be done than exactly that: not harming the patient further and hoping that the disease disappears by itself.

kimiko

4th June 2005, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I never said they had control of their feelings; only their actions. But you are asserting that no level of physiological distress ever prevents a person from any behavior that society considers normal; they're simply choosing. How exactly does that jibe with your statement earlier that the rates of addiction remain level through different government policies and in different times? If the same percentage of the US population was addicted to alcohol during prohibition as now, when we know it cannot be the same exact people, doesn't that suggest that there may be a physical attribute that manifests in a steady way through time in the population? That the people who suffer addiction and are unable to quit may be qualitatively different from the people able to quit? Further that some addictions and compulsive behaviors respond to treatment with psychopharmaceuticals suggests there is something physical involved independent of willpower.

Funny; that's exactly how it was with heroin and cocaine back when they were legal. They aren't equivalent. You can buy caffeine powder at retail for about $0.05 per gram. A soda contains about 16mg of caffeine and the average size coffee about 90mg. Even heavy caffeine users, 5-8 drinks per day, will still only be ingesting about 128 to 720 mg per day at the upper range. So even if the price went up dramatically, the cost of heavy addiction would be slight, particularly compared to illegal drugs.

shanek

4th June 2005, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by kimiko
But you are asserting that no level of physiological distress ever prevents a person from any behavior that society considers normal; they're simply choosing.

No, I'm not. In fact, I've said just the opposite with regards to insanity; I've also said that psychological effects (such as a phobia) make a choice more difficult to make, so it's not true that they're "simply" choosing. They're choosing, but it's often not simple. And I never said anything about "behavior that society considers normal." I'm just talking about being responsible for one's actions.

How exactly does that jibe with your statement earlier that the rates of addiction remain level through different government policies and in different times?

That just says that people are going to continue to make a choice regardless of what government says. Just like changing the speed limit doesn't affect the speed at which drivers drive.

They aren't equivalent.

They were back when they all were legal.

So even if the price went up dramatically, the cost of heavy addiction would be slight, particularly compared to illegal drugs.

But I wasn't comparing it to illegal drugs! That was the point! Heroin and cocaine were legal at the time!

kimiko

4th June 2005, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by shanek
No, I'm not. In fact, I've said just the opposite with regards to insanity; I've also said that psychological effects (such as a phobia) make a choice more difficult to make, so it's not true that they're "simply" choosing. They're choosing, but it's often not simple. And I never said anything about "behavior that society considers normal." I'm just talking about being responsible for one's actions. So you say it's not simple, but still assert that there is never a situation where physiological distress can prevent someone from doing something they want, or make someone do something they don't want to do. That their will can overcome any physiological distress, they just choose not to. You cannot know that with certainty.
But I wasn't comparing it to illegal drugs! That was the point! Heroin and cocaine were legal at the time! That was my point. Caffeine is highly unlikely to ever cause the same social costs as heroin or cocaine, even if it was made illegal. The cost could skyrocket, and it would still be reasonable.

shanek

4th June 2005, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by kimiko
So you say it's not simple, but still assert that there is never a situation where physiological distress can prevent someone from doing something they want, or make someone do something they don't want to do.

Nope; never said that either, specifically said otherwise, even in the post you were directly responding to.

Reading Is Fundamental.

Caffeine is highly unlikely to ever cause the same social costs as heroin or cocaine, even if it was made illegal.

And you base this on, what?

The cost could skyrocket, and it would still be reasonable.

And heroin is much cheaper nowadays as well. So the point is?

kimiko

4th June 2005, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Nope; never said that either, specifically said otherwise, even in the post you were directly responding to. Yes, you said in cases of insanity, but I'm not talking about the insane, I'm talking about normal people who suffer addiction. The question is whether they cede control to their addictions. You think they have complete free will, but have ignored the point about addictive behaviors responding to medication. Attributing personal success in beating addiction to some positive trait like strong willpower and dismissing others' failures as a poor personal trait is attribution bias. It is erroneous. Reading Is Fundamental. Try the discussion without being patronizing. It doesn't take the fun out. And you base this on, what? The current price I quoted in a post above, plus the levels of heavy usage of caffeine place a heavy user below one gram daily. It could rise by a hundred times and only be 5 dollars daily for the heaviest users. The exhorbitant prices are what is related to some of the social costs of illegal drugs like robbery and impure product causing overdoses. And heroin is much cheaper nowadays as well. So the point is? Heroin is much cheaper now than when?

The point is caffeine as an example of how the marketplace self regulates to the benefit of consumers is not applicable to prescriptive medications, as the thread was based on.

shanek

4th June 2005, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by kimiko
You think they have complete free will, but have ignored the point about addictive behaviors responding to medication.

No, I haven't. I said it was a very difficult thing to do. That the medication makes it easier in no way invalidates my point.

Heroin is much cheaper now than when?

Than before the War on Drugs, and keeps getting cheaper (once you adjust for inflation and purity, of course).

The point is caffeine as an example of how the marketplace self regulates to the benefit of consumers is not applicable to prescriptive medications, as the thread was based on.

Heroin and cocaine weren't prescriptive medicines when they were legal.

Sushi

4th June 2005, 11:43 PM

Since I kind of suck at politics but I am much better with philosophy, I will start with that.

The free will arguments thrown in here depend largely on what context "free will" is being used.

The combatibalist view, as already mentioned, is basically just a semantic difference. If you define "free will" to basically be someone following their "programming" without anything, say, "sticking up the gears" (compare this to a stick being thrown in gearworks to disrupt the machine), then that is consistent with our generally materialist worldviews on this forum.

If you mean something more mysterious and undefinable, then it is not consistent in any way I know of.

I'm pretty sure we all fall under #1, but often people, including me, use terminology that often applies to the original connotation of "free will", number two. I just want to remind everyone to be careful of how they use the term "free will", since it generally has a connotation most of us here don't mean when we use it (at least I would hope they don't mean it, for consistency's sake).

That irrelevance aside, I see no reason why we need to regulate any sort of consensual behavior. People will always weigh risk vs. pleasure, and there is no rational or irrational decision because there is no correct thing we should value ahead of the other (unless you have other qualifications that are you inconsistent with).

Even if people do more drugs when deregulated (maybe a possibility, probably a bit exaggerated) it doesn't matter. Why should we force another person not to take risks? If they get addicted and kill themselves, so what?

There is of course the argument that they end up hurting other people to support their habit. This is the most dangerous argument of all, as it presumes guilt and can be used to control almost any behavior. This argument gets more legitimacy when the government is involved, too. Find polygamy icky? Use "children might be born into welfare and take all the money!" as a piss-poor excuse (and yes, I've heard that one). You can find an excuse, no matter how dubious, for this argument. Displeased with violence in the media? Ban video games and movies that depict violence to "stop them from influencing our children!" Even the religious bigots use it against homosexual marriage, bringing up red herrings such as bestiality and incest to try to illicit emotional responses towards sexual promiscuity.

(Violence, as well, MAY rise as a result of society seeing more of it, because it becomes part of their worldview and thought process. I think we should rather just live with it and try to deal with it instead of oppressing individuals for the acts of other individuals. The "cure" is much worse than the disease...)

Another thing nobody has pointed out is that those who commit crimes to support their habit might do so because they are predisposed to be more likely to take risks-- not that the drug makes them do it. Both the act of commiting crimes and the usage of drugs might stem from a common cause instead of having a cause/effect relationship.

CFLarsen

5th June 2005, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Than before the War on Drugs, and keeps getting cheaper (once you adjust for inflation and purity, of course).

I assume it would be rude to ask for evidence of this?

CBL4

5th June 2005, 09:36 AM

I think this argument about alcoholism whether alcohol is or is not a disease is kind of silly. Alcoholism and other addictions are different from choices and diseases. Trying to say it is a choice or a disease misses the point. It is both and neither.

Alcoholism is not a "real" disease in the sense that cancer or the flu is are diseases. Real diseases cannot be cured almost instantly by changes in behavior.

Alcoholism is not a "real" choice such as the choice of whether to have a hotdog or a hamburger for lunch. There are strong compulsions to drink and strong symptoms from stopping.

Addictions, phobias, depression, etc can be beaten by will power but it is very difficult. It is absurd to ignore these two facts and try to classify them in boxes that they do not fit in.

CBL

shanek

5th June 2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by CBL4
Alcoholism is not a "real" disease in the sense that cancer or the flu is are diseases. Real diseases cannot be cured almost instantly by changes in behavior.

Alcoholism is not a "real" choice such as the choice of whether to have a hotdog or a hamburger for lunch. There are strong compulsions to drink and strong symptoms from stopping.

Suppose I really really like hamburgers, and I really can't stand hot dogs? Would I not then have a "strong compulsion" to eat the hamburger and not the hot dog?

The former is a fundamental difference. The latter is only a difference of magnitude.

Addictions, phobias, depression, etc can be beaten by will power but it is very difficult.

And I keep saying that: it's not easy. Not all choices are.

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 11:51 AM

Same thing. In either case, they are unable to apply the understanding to the action.I don't think being unable to apply the understanding to the action is the same thing as not understanding it.

I also find it strange that you acknowledge that some people are unable to control their actions when you consider them insane, but you still claim that people with compulsive behaviours act out of their own free will. Can you explain why you think it is impossible that addictions or phobias are forms of insanity?All along I've disclaimed insanity from that.If insanity is an exception, than your claim that 'there is always a choice' is false: there is no choice in the case of insanity.Real medical cures work regardless of the patient's belief in them.All you do is show how dyslexic you are. You keep misreading what I wrote.

Mental illnesses have effects on the beliefs and feelings of people, for example a paranoid person believes aliens are plotting against him. Give him medication that works, regardless of whether the patient believes it works, and those beliefs will change. The paranoid person starts to believe that the alien conspiracy was just a silly delusion.

My argument has nothing to do with the beliefs the patient has about the medicine. It has to do with the beliefs the patient has about himself. Read it again, if you have to.We aren't talking about panic attacks; that's a different thing entirely and this is just a red herring.I'm talking about panic attacks that are triggered by the thing a person is phobic for. The only thing that is an entirely different thing and a red herring is talking about panic attacks that are not caused by a phobia.But it does mean that those who claim it's a disease based on genetics are making unfounded claims.I don't think they are making unfounded claims, just because a gene that causes alcoholism hasn't been found. I think there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that genetics plays a role in developing alcoholism.

And even if it is not a genetic disease, does not show that it is not a disease.Showing that it's a lifestyle choice is very important to the discussionJust because it is a 'lifestyle choice' does not mean it is not a disease. The two are not mutually exclusive.You don't see the fact that they're using any objective scientific definition as a problem?It doesn't say that. It says that the definition is socially defined, which is true of all objective scientific definitions. The only reason why a platinum cylinder in France is called a kilogram, is because scientists call it a kilogram. It is an objective scientific definition, and it is purely socially defined.

The same is true of 'disease'. Just because it is socially defined does not prove it is not an objective scientific definition.You're in complete control of what you do; you're not in control of what you feel.I don't think that is true. People are not always in complete control over what they do. You have even acknowledged that in the case of 'insanity'. And people are likewise not completely out of control when it comes to their feelings: I can do things that make me feel better, so I have some 'control' over my feelings.

Sometimes though, a person has feelings they cannot control, and the same is true of behaviour.There are many identificable "symptoms" of being a Star Trek fan. Is being a Star Trek fan a disease?Are there any vital functions affected?What about voting Republican until you're taxed to death? Gotta be some kind of "brain abnormality" going on there...I'm not going to exclude that possibility.They're choosing, but it's often not simple.And I say that sometimes it is so hard that it is not reasonable to claim that it is chosen out of one's own free will.Just like changing the speed limit doesn't affect the speed at which drivers drive.There are other ways that do affect the speed at which drivers drive, and so there are also other ways to affect drug use.

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Sushi
If they get addicted and kill themselves, so what?There is a little thing called 'compassion' that many people display when they see someone in a dangerous situation. Many people can't stand to see someone killing themselves and want that person to be saved. This is especially true when that person does not seem to want to kill himselves, but cannot prevent himself from doing so.

You can similarly say about people who go hiking in the wilderness "If they get lost and kill themselves because of a lack of preparation, so what?" but you'll find that there are others who consider such a position unnecessarily harsh and instead expect a lot of effort to save that person.Originally posted by CBL4
Real diseases cannot be cured almost instantly by changes in behavior.Alcoholism also cannot be cured almost instantly by changes in behaviour. The alcoholic will still suffer from the organ damage caused by alcohol.Addictions, phobias, depression, etc can be beaten by will power but it is very difficult.It is especially difficult because these affect willpower negatively. If someone has the willpower to beat them, s/he is already partially cured.

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 12:17 PM

Checking it out, it seems the Netherlands policy is far less tolerant than most people realise.That's right. It's not all that tolerant at all.There is tacit approval of marijuana useNote that the main difference the Dutch policy has with that of many other countries, is that this tacit approval is legislated. Even regulated. But it exists in another form in other countries as well, usually by the police not giving any priority to stopping marijuana use or trade.The reasons for this are sadly far from clear, but the increased weight given to rehabilitation for users may well be a factor.Dutch politicians will say that this too is because of the Dutch softdrug policy. The policy is specifically designed around the assumption that marijuana is a 'gateway drug'. Once someone gets in contact with a drugsdealer to get marijuana it becomes more likely that that person will later buy harder drugs from the same person, the argument goes.

The Dutch policy is designed to seperate the sale of softdrugs from the sale of harddrugs. If users of softdrugs can get their stuff without coming into contact with dealers who also deal in harddrugs, they are less likely to try harddrugs. Marijuana stops being a gateway to more dangerous substances.

If the assumptions on which this policy is based are correct, then it is not surprising that the use of harddrugs in the Netherlands is also lower. The policy is specifically designed to achieve that.

shanek

5th June 2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't think being unable to apply the understanding to the action is the same thing as not understanding it.

Effectively it is.

Can you explain why you think it is impossible that addictions or phobias are forms of insanity?

Because through it all, there is the understanding of what the person is doing.

Mental illnesses have effects on the beliefs and feelings of people, for example a paranoid person believes aliens are plotting against him.

And I'd like to point out that he can be perfectly aware that rationally he knows this is not happening; the feelings of paranoia are going beyond that. I noticed that in college with my pot-smoking friends. When they got high, they got paranoid; yet, they were perfectly aware that they were paranoid.

Give him medication that works, regardless of whether the patient believes it works, and those beliefs will change.

No, the feelings will change. The belief, as I pointed out above, is quite different. What's happening is that he's able to have the beliefs of his rational mind prevail.

I'm sure I don't have to point out that many people believe in alien conspiracies with no such mental illness.

I'm talking about panic attacks that are triggered by the thing a person is phobic for.

Then you're talking about a coincidence. Besides, it seems extremely unlikely that it would occur this way. I'd presume that almost all of the time the "phobia" would not be a phobia at all, but come about because of the person's awareness of that thing triggering the attack.

The only thing that is an entirely different thing and a red herring is talking about panic attacks that are not caused by a phobia.

The point is, it's the panic attack, and not the phobia, that is the debilitating factor here.

I don't think they are making unfounded claims, just because a gene that causes alcoholism hasn't been found.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"

I think there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that genetics plays a role in developing alcoholism.

There is NO EVIDENCE that it does. All of the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.

And even if it is not a genetic disease, does not show that it is not a disease.

More shifting of the burden of proof...

Just because it is a 'lifestyle choice' does not mean it is not a disease. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Support this. And I'm not talking about things like smoking causing lung cancer; that cannot be abated simply by stopping smoking.

It doesn't say that. It says that the definition is socially defined, which is true of all objective scientific definitions.

Sorry; that is true of NO objective scientific definitions. "Fusion" means a very specific thing, and the definition was created, not by a social definition, but by empirical observation.

The only reason why a platinum cylinder in France is called a kilogram, is because scientists call it a kilogram.

You're comparing a unit of measurement with a thing to be measured??? Mass is mass, and has a particular definition that is independent of society. An intelligent race studying the Universe on the other side of the galaxy would come up with the same definition without having even met us. That there might be different units for measuring that mass proves nothing.

It is an objective scientific definition,

No, it isn't. It's a standard of measurement. And besides, many scientists the world over are unhappy with the current definition of a "kilogram" and want a more objectively-applied criteria than what some hunk of metal somewhere happens to weigh. They want it to be the equivalent of the mass of a certain number of silicon atoms. That mass of a silicon atom is not socially defined; only the quantity used for measuring purposes.

The same is true of 'disease'.

No, it isn't. "Disease" is not a unit of measurement.

I can do things that make me feel better, so I have some 'control' over my feelings.

But you don't have much if any control at all over what things those are.

Are there any vital functions affected?

Many times there are. The ability to socialize, for one. So is StarTrekism a disease?

And I say that sometimes it is so hard that it is not reasonable to claim that it is chosen out of one's own free will.

And I say that does not absolve you of the consequences of your actions.

There are other ways that do affect the speed at which drivers drive,

All of those affect what the driver wants. Speed tables are effective because the driver doesn't want to speed as much as he wants to avoid the discomfort of going too fast over the table. You've changed the conditions, and so the desires change.

How many of us would throw ourselves off of skyscrapers if we knew we could do so without pain or injury? I think that would be quite fun. Many people have found that outlet through bungee jumping; personally I haven't because I have decided that the risks aren't worth the feeling of exhiliration, but if I had the opportunity I'd love to try skydiving because the risks are much less. That's a choice. I would only throw myself off of a building or out of a perfectly good plane if I could be sufficiently assured of my safety.

Sushi

5th June 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
There is a little thing called 'compassion' that many people display when they see someone in a dangerous situation. Many people can't stand to see someone killing themselves and want that person to be saved. This is especially true when that person does not seem to want to kill himselves, but cannot prevent himself from doing so.

You can similarly say about people who go hiking in the wilderness "If they get lost and kill themselves because of a lack of preparation, so what?" but you'll find that there are others who consider such a position unnecessarily harsh and instead expect a lot of effort to save that person.

I understand their motivations. The truth is, though, that only you are responsible for yourself (in normal circumstances). There is a difference between compassion and making broad legal rules that apply to everyone and limit individual freedom.

I would try to help someone I liked if they werein such a situation. Hell, I've given people a hard time about smoking. I just don't think the government should be a tool to save people who knowingly take risks and end up on the bad side of it.

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 02:56 PM

Because through it all, there is the understanding of what the person is doing.So, what? According to you, having an understanding of what you are doing while not being able to control it is 'effectively the same' as not having that understanding. So why should the understanding make a difference?

I don't think that it is necessarily true that someone who is addicted has a full understanding of what they are doing. Lots of addicts claim not to be addicts at all and even claim that their behaviour is not destructive.And I'd like to point out that he can be perfectly aware that rationally he knows this is not happeningIt is possible, but not necessarily true.What's happening is that he's able to have the beliefs of his rational mind prevail.If he didn't rationally know what was happening before, then it is the same thing as changing his beliefs.Then you're talking about a coincidence.No, I'm not. I'm talking about one thing directly causing the other.Besides, it seems extremely unlikely that it would occur this way. I'd presume that almost all of the time the "phobia" would not be a phobia at allSo you are denying what it said in DSM IV?come about because of the person's awareness of that thing triggering the attack.I don't see why that would make it a non-phobia.

And as I have said before, it is true with many diseases (especially mental ones) that it is not always clear what is cause and what is effect of the disease."Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"Whatever you mean with it, it is irrelevant. Many disease were known to have a genetic component before the gene for it was found. So, just because the genes that definetely influences it haven't been found does not mean there is no evidence for a genetic influence.All of the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.I already posted a Google search link that gives a lot of results to research that does point towards a genetic link. Some claim even to have found an alcoholism gene. So I think it is time for you to support your claim. Link to that statistical evidence that suggests otherwise!Support this.What's to support? That some diseases are called 'lifestyle choices' by some people? Just look at the opinion on depression on some antipsychiatry website."Fusion" means a very specific thingThat's right. It does, but that does not prove it wasn't socially defined.the definition was created, not by a social definition, but by empirical observation.Empirical observation plays a large role, but empirical observation doesn't write the definitions in science textbooks. Humans do. Human scientists have negotiated with eachother on what they should write down as a definition, so it is socially defined.You're comparing a unit of measurement with a thing to be measured???No, I am comparing one scientific definition with another.Mass is mass, and has a particular definition that is independent of society.Not quite true. 'Mass' is a word, invented by people to describe certain phenomena that people empirically observed.An intelligent race studying the Universe on the other side of the galaxy would come up with the same definition without having even met us.It would not even use the same word. I don't even think it would use the exact same definition for a word it invented to describe their own empirically observations of the same phenomenon. Maybe they prefer to define what we call 'mass' by describing its inertia instead of the amount of matter. Or perhaps they define it by refering to its relativistic effects. Heck, even here on Earth does 'mass' have several definitions.It's a standard of measurement.That's right. It is an objective scientific definition of a standard of measurement.They want it to be the equivalent of the mass of a certain number of silicon atoms.That's not the only proposed definition. There are others, and which one will be chosen is a matter of... social convention.That mass of a silicon atom is not socially defined; only the quantity used for measuring purposes.The quantity is the only thing that is relevant to the definition of a kilogram. When it becomes socially defined, it becomes an objective scientific definition.No, it isn't. "Disease" is not a unit of measurement.Makes no difference. Just like units of measurement it is defined through social convention. Scientists look at a number of phenomena. They look at the things they consider diseases to see what they have in common and write down what they have in common in a definition. They then discuss their definition with other scientists and see if they can reach consensus over a particular formulation.But you don't have much if any control at all over what things those are.I don't see why that is relevant.Many times there are. The ability to socialize, for one.Does the ability to socialise at Star Trek conventions count?And I say that does not absolve you of the consequences of your actions.What if it becomes so hard and so unreasonable to expect non-destructive behaviour that the person involved must be considered 'insane' ?All of those affect what the driver wants.I fail to see the relevance of that distinction.

shanek

5th June 2005, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
So, what? According to you, having an understanding of what you are doing while not being able to control it is 'effectively the same' as not having that understanding. So why should the understanding make a difference?

It shouldn't. You need both the understanding and the control. I misspoke.

I don't think that it is necessarily true that someone who is addicted has a full understanding of what they are doing.

My own experience, the experience of those I know who have fought addiction, and the available scientific evidence says otherwise.

Lots of addicts claim not to be addicts at all and even claim that their behaviour is not destructive.It is possible, but not necessarily true.

Yeah, that's called "denial." Your point?

If he didn't rationally know what was happening before, then it is the same thing as changing his beliefs.

There would have to be something else to convince the rational part of his mind that his feelings were wrong. Otherwise, it would simply be the emotional part of his mind getting out of the way of the rational.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about one thing directly causing the other.

Again, there are tons of things that can trigger a panic attack. With some people, it's flashing lights; with others, it's a phobia. Lots of things. You're just looking at the ones where the panic attack happens to be triggered by a phobia and claiming the panic attack is a symptom of a phobia, a claim you have no rational basis for,

So you are denying what it said in DSM IV?

What are you talking about>

I don't see why that would make it a non-phobia.

I never said it was a non-phobia. I'm saying there is no special significance to a phobia triggering a panic attack than any other stimuli.

Many disease were known to have a genetic component before the gene for it was found.

Because there was statistical evidence for it. There is no such evidence here; the statistical evidence actually refutes the notion.

I already posted a Google search link that gives a lot of results to research that does point towards a genetic link.

That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

Some claim even to have found an alcoholism gene.

And some claim to have cold fusion working. But the credible scientists who publish in journals, as I have posted, and don't rely on Google or Wikipedia, are very skeptical of the idea of alcohol being a disease.

So I think it is time for you to support your claim.

I have. I have submitted actual scientific evidence. Much better than Google or Wikipedia.

Link to that statistical evidence that suggests otherwise!

Again, I already have.

It does, but that does not prove it wasn't socially defined.

In what way was it "socially defined"?

In what way was the shape of the Earth socially defined? It was socially defined as being flat; the empirical evidence said it was round.

No, I am comparing one scientific definition with another.

Just because they're both fruits doesn't mean it isn't an apples-oranges comparison.

Not quite true. 'Mass' is a word, invented by people to describe certain phenomena that people empirically observed.

:rolleyes:

Whatever. A rose by any other name...

It would not even use the same word.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!! We aren't talking about what random sounds, or symbols, or whatever you assign to it...we're talking about the thing being measured. So what if we call it "mass" and the Zenobians call it "qlar'k'bitz"? It's the same thing!

I don't even think it would use the exact same definition for a word it invented to describe their own empirically observations of the same phenomenon.

You could directly substitute one for the other and they would work perfectly, assuming both races arrived at the word by objective scientific observation.

Maybe they prefer to define what we call 'mass' by describing its inertia instead of the amount of matter.

Then they're talking about inertia, and we have ways of talking about that, too.

That's right. It is an objective scientific definition of a standard of measurement.

It's not objective, and that's the problem.

The quantity is the only thing that is relevant to the definition of a kilogram.

BUT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT A MEASUREMENT STANDARD!!! This is completely irrelevant to the topic!

I don't see why that is relevant.

How could it not be relevant? It's the very thing we're talking about!

Does the ability to socialise at Star Trek conventions count?

Nope; we're talking society in general. They gotta be mainstreamed, doncha know...

What if it becomes so hard and so unreasonable to expect non-destructive behaviour that the person involved must be considered 'insane' ?

Then they're considered insane. Is this really a question?

I fail to see the relevance of that distinction.

Because it isn't changing what the person wants; it's just changing the environment. And people want varying things given the environment. A man in the desert wants an icebox; a man in an igloo would love a heater.

shanek

5th June 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Sushi
I understand their motivations. The truth is, though, that only you are responsible for yourself (in normal circumstances). There is a difference between compassion and making broad legal rules that apply to everyone and limit individual freedom.

I would try to help someone I liked if they werein such a situation. Hell, I've given people a hard time about smoking. I just don't think the government should be a tool to save people who knowingly take risks and end up on the bad side of it.

Exactly. You don't get compassion at the point of a gun. The truly compassionate person says, "It's their own fault, but I'm gonna help them anyway."

kimiko

5th June 2005, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by CBL4
Real diseases cannot be cured almost instantly by changes in behavior. Non-insulin dependent Type 2 diabetes?

shanek

5th June 2005, 07:49 PM

A lot of good points on this very issue:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/muhm1.html

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 09:44 PM

It shouldn't. You need both the understanding and the control. I misspoke.So someone who does not have the understanding but does have the control, or someone who does have the understanding but no control is not insane, and whatever they did, they did it out of their own 'free will' ?Yeah, that's called "denial." Your point?My point is that they don't necessarily understand the consequences of their behaviour, and in some cases should be considered 'insane'.What are you talking aboutThe DSM IV (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/specphob.htm), that thing I linked to earlier that shows that I was right, and you were wrong.I'm saying there is no special significance to a phobia triggering a panic attack than any other stimuli.So you are contradicting the respected medical source I linked to.Because there was statistical evidence for it. There is no such evidence here; the statistical evidence actually refutes the notion.Present the statistical evidence that refutes it. Preferably something that is a little more recent than 1990And some claim to have cold fusion working. But the credible scientists who publish in journalsIt appears that you are a little too lazy to follow a link and see for yourself that many of the things that appear in the Google search are perfectly legimitimate scientific investigations, I'll just post a bit for you.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa18.htm)

The idea that alcoholism runs in families is an ancient one. In recent decades, science has advanced this idea from the status of folk-observation to systematic investigation (1-3). In the 1970s, studies documented that alcoholism does run in families (4,5).

(snip)

For example, Pickens and co-workers (18) studied 169 same-sex pairs of twins, both males and females, at least one of which had sought treatment for alcoholism. The researchers found greater concordance of alcohol dependence in identical twins than in fraternal twins. They also found greater concordance of alcohol abuse (defined by DSM-III--Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, of the American Psychiatric Association) in identical male twins but not in identical female twins. Other twin studies have produced more detailed information; for example, Partanen and co-workers (19), in studying 902 male Finnish twins, found that less severe drinking patterns were less heritable, and more severe drinking patterns were more heritable.

(snip)

Cloninger and co-workers (23) hypothesized that so-called type II alcoholics--characterized as having an early onset of drinking problems, usually being male, and displaying personality disorders such as antisocial behavior--had a more heritable form of alcoholism (26). However, other researchers have argued that the scenario of inheritance is more complex, and what is inherited is a mix of personality traits, such as those related to antisocial behavior, rather than alcoholism itself (27). Genes might play a direct role in the development of alcoholism, as in affecting the body's metabolism of alcohol; or they might play a less direct role, influencing a person's temperament or personality in such a way that the person becomes vulnerable to alcoholism.WebMD (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/87/99592.htm)A new study links a gene to alcohol addiction -- backing up a long-recognized pattern showing that alcoholism runs in families.

(snip)

Research has shown that alcohol addiction is a complex disease, with both genetics and a tendency toward anxiety playing "crucial roles," writes researcher Subhash C. Pandey, PhD, a psychiatrist with the University of Illinois at Chicago.

(snip)

In this study, Pandey and colleagues worked with rats specially bred to be deficient in the CREB "alcoholism" gene.Yahoo Health quotes Psychology Today (http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/addiction/1854)Researchers have long known that alcoholism runs in families; in fact, studies show that 60% of alcoholics have at least one alcoholic parent.

(snip)

Researchers suspect that family incidence of alcoholism runs unusually high among early-onset alcoholics, suggesting a genetic predisposition. This group comprises 40% of the estimated million male alcoholics in the United States.I have. I have submitted actual scientific evidence.Uhm, no. I don't think you have. And even if you have, you posted material from 15 years ago. In those years, things could have changed.In what way was it "socially defined"?The definition of fusion was decided by people (scientists) who did so by negotiation.In what way was the shape of the Earth socially defined?The shape of the Earth is not socially defined. The shape of the Earth is what it is. But the definition of 'sphere' is socially defined.Whatever. A rose by any other name...But not a rose by any other definition. If you define a rose as a thing that grows underground, then it is not the same thing. The definition of the word 'rose' is socially defined.We aren't talking about what random sounds, or symbols, or whatever you assign to it...we're talking about the thing being measured.Actually, we are talking about the definition of something being measured. Not the thing itself. Things have an existence outside of what we call them. Even if we refuse to call something a disease, it stays exactly the same thing as it is. But if we define the word 'disease' as some sort of phenomenon, we need to acknowledge that everything that fits into the definition is a disease.

Addiction affects vital functions, it is caused by the environment or inherent malfunction of the organism. Ergo: it is a disease.Then they're talking about inertia, and we have ways of talking about that, too.No, they are talking about mass, in terms of inertia. You can easily define mass as how hard it is to get it to move in a different direction in a vaccuum. The more inertia, the more mass. Same phenomenon, different definition.It's not objective, and that's the problem.It is not subjective either: I can't make my own kilogram and claim that my kilogram is just as good as everyone else's kilogram. It is also not intersubjective: the cylinder of platinum has an existence outside the minds of people. It has an objective existence and it weighs the same for everybody, therefore it is objective.How could it not be relevant?If I can choose to do things that make me feel better, then I have at least some control over my feelings, haven't I? So with some control over both my feelings and my actions, your distinction between having control over actions but not feelings is meaningless. I have some control over both, and for both my control is to some degree limited.Nope; we're talking society in general. They gotta be mainstreamed, doncha know...If society in general doesn't consider being mainstreamed a vital function, then being a Trekkie is not a disease.Then they're considered insane. Is this really a question?Yes, it is because you keep changing your definition of 'insane'. One minute a person is only insane if they don't understand the consequences of their actions, another they are also insane if they are unable to act on that understanding, and bit later you continue that say that if they understand the consequences of their actions they can also act on them and they are not insane.Because it isn't changing what the person wantsYou contradict yourself. You said: "All of those affect what the driver wants."

One minute you say that it affects what the driver wants, the other you say that it isn't changing what the driver wants. So which is it? Does it change what the driver wants or not?

Is there a problem with trying to adjust behaviour by changing what people want?

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 10:04 PM

The truth is, though, that only you are responsible for yourselfI don't think that is "The Truth", I think it is just "Your Opinion".(in normal circumstances)We aren't talking about normal circumstances, we are talking about someone engaging in self-destructive behaviour, usually without actually wanting to destruct oneself. And your reaction was "So what?"There is a difference between compassion and making broad legal rules that apply to everyone and limit individual freedom.There is also a difference between saying "So what?" and showing compassion. If I have to choose between not caring at all when someone is killing himself and making broad legal rules, I'll choose the latter. It is more compassionate.Hell, I've given people a hard time about smoking.Giving people a hard time is not helping them. You seem to have a little difficulty showing any compassion.I just don't think the government should be a tool to save people who knowingly take risks and end up on the bad side of it.We are not talking about those. We are talking about people who have a greater than normal difficulty in preventing themselves from taking those risks.

If the government is not a tool to save people from suffering, what purpose does it have? (Protecting rights is the same as saving people from suffering, is it not?).

shanek

5th June 2005, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
So someone who does not have the understanding but does have the control, or someone who does have the understanding but no control is not insane, and whatever they did, they did it out of their own 'free will' ?

Uh, no. I just said they need both.

My point is that they don't necessarily understand the consequences of their behaviour, and in some cases should be considered 'insane'.

No, because the information is available to them. They ignore it at their own peril.

The DSM IV (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/specphob.htm), that thing I linked to earlier that shows that I was right, and you were wrong.

Sorry, but again, this link sounds like what I was saying. For example:

"Individuals suffering from this Anxiety Disorder experience phobia or unreasonable fear or anxiety in connection with exposure to specific objects or situations and because of this avoid them whenever possible."

"The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable." (This directly contradicts what you said above.)

"The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress."

All of these quotes are consistent with what I have said in this thread.

So you are contradicting the respected medical source I linked to.

As the above quotes show, I'm not.

Present the statistical evidence that refutes it. Preferably something that is a little more recent than 1990

WTF does it matter when the study was done? Did something change immensely in human biology over the last 15 years?

And even if you have, you posted material from 15 years ago. In those years, things could have changed.

Like what??? Did the Drakh Plague fall to Earth and change our biology? Did the Slaveen manage to radiate us, causing this mutation everywhere, and Doctor Who couldn't stop them?

The shape of the Earth is not socially defined. The shape of the Earth is what it is.

Exactly.

But the definition of 'sphere' is socially defined.

Again, it doesn't matter WHAT the actual word is!

But not a rose by any other definition.

It still is what it is, regardless of what collection of sounds society uses to identify it. You're confusing a tool for identification with the thing being studied. You don't have any grounds for this.

Addiction affects vital functions, it is caused by the environment or inherent malfunction of the organism. Ergo: it is a disease.

No, it isn't. It's caused by the person willfully ingesting alcohol, and goes away when they stop. That's not "the environment" or an "inherent malfunction." That's their own choice.

No, they are talking about mass, in terms of inertia. You can easily define mass as how hard it is to get it to move in a different direction in a vaccuum.

But you still end up with the same thing.

Whether it's V=IR, R=V/I, I=V/R, T=EC, E=T/C, C=T/E, Ohm's Law, etc., you're still talking about the same objective phenomenon. Just because there's different ways of expressing it doesn't mean you're not arriving at the same thing.

If I can choose to do things that make me feel better, then I have at least some control over my feelings, haven't I?

You have control over your pursuit of happiness. But you don't have control over what things make you happy. If you hate hot dogs, eating a hot dog isn't likely to make you happy no matter how hard you try.

If society in general doesn't consider being mainstreamed a vital function, then being a Trekkie is not a disease.

Does that mean it is a disease if the Trekkie operates in mainstream society?

Yes, it is because you keep changing your definition of 'insane'.

No, I don't. It's been consistent the whole time, except for the time I misspoke. I clarified that.

You contradict yourself. You said: "All of those affect what the driver wants."

No, I don't, and if you hadn't snipped the rest of that sentence you would have seen why.

Earthborn

6th June 2005, 12:30 AM

Uh, no. I just said they need both.Then I have understood you correctly. If they need both to be insane, and they miss one, then they are not insane. That's what you are saying, right?No, because the information is available to them.The information about the destructiveness of their behaviour is available to all insane people. So it is more important whether the information gets through, isn't it?Sorry, but again, this link sounds like what I was saying.Nice selective quoting. You forgot the thing that proves you wrong:
B. Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed Panic AttackYour claim was that panic attacks had nothing to do with phobias. You even claimed that if someone has a panic attack becuase of something it is not really a phobia, but a reaction to having a panic attack.This directly contradicts what you said above.No, it doesn't.Did something change immensely in human biology over the last 15 years?The understanding of human biology has changed immensely. So what seemed to be true then may not appear to be true today.You're confusing a tool for identification with the thing being studied.No, I am not. I'm only discussing the tool for identification. The word 'disease' is such a tool. This part of the discussion is only about the definition of that word.It's caused by the person willfully ingesting alcohol, and goes away when they stop.It is untrue that alcoholism goes away when someone stops drinking. Not all drinking problems are alcoholism.That's not "the environment" or an "inherent malfunction."The alcohol is an environmental factor, is it not?That's their own choice.What caused someone to make that choice?Just because there's different ways of expressing it doesn't mean you're not arriving at the same thing.But it does mean that you're defining it in a different way. I'm talking about definitions.You have control over your pursuit of happiness. But you don't have control over what things make you happy.Explain why this is relevant.Does that mean it is a disease if the Trekkie operates in mainstream society?No, it doesn't. It means exactly what I said: if mainstream society considers being mainstream a vital function, and considers Trekkies out of the mainstream, then being a Trekkie is considered a disease. If society does not consider being mainstream a vital function, then it does not consider being a Trekkie a disease.No, I don't. It's been consistent the whole timeI don't that's true.

You said: "there's always a choice." The way I understand the word 'always' is as no exceptions. So there is no exception for the insane.

When you are confronted with the problem of insane people, you defined insane people is those who are "unable to understand the consequences of their actions." So that's definition number 1: "the insane are people who are unable to understand the consequences of their actions."

Then I mentioned 'Alien Hand Syndrome', a syndrome where someone is smart enough to understand the consequences of their actions, but is unable to control some of them. You said: "Same thing. In either case, they are unable to apply the understanding to the action." Now we have definition number 2: "the insane are people who unable to understand or to apply their understanding of the consequences of their actions." You have claimed that being able to understand and being about to apply the understanding is 'effectively the same thing'.

You have however not acknowledged that phobias, compulsive behaviour or addictions can be forms of insanity, even though it can be argued that people suffering from them are unable (or at least have great difficulty) to apply their understanding of the consequences of their actions. When asked about those things, you resort to definition number 1, as can be shown with this:
"Because through it all, there is the understanding of what the person is doing."

Suddenly, you do make a clear distinction between being able to understand and applying that understanding, which before you claimed were effectively the same thing. An addict is not insane, because he understands what he is doing. Apperently 'being able to apply the understanding' is now irrelevant.

Later you say: "You need both the understanding and the control. I misspoke."

If one needs both, then that opens up the possibility that addiction actually is a form of insanity. There maybe the understanding but not the control. Or if the addict is in denial there maybe control without understanding. Or there is no control or understanding.

So which is it? Can addiction be a form of insanity, and if not, why not?No, I don't, and if you hadn't snipped the rest of that sentence you would have seen why.Sorry, you'll have to explain to me why it is not a contradiction.

(Nice dodge of the genetic link evidence, by the way!)

username

6th June 2005, 08:41 AM

Earthborn and Shanek,

I appears to me that you are using two different definitions of the term disease.

Earthborn is using a social definition and Shanek is using a scientific definition.

The two of you aren't likely to agree on this issue unless you agree on the definition of disease.

Earthborn

6th June 2005, 09:41 AM

Earthborn is using a social definition and Shanek is using a scientific definition.The social definition is the scientific definition.The two of you aren't likely to agree on this issue unless you agree on the definition of disease.All along I've been using the definition Shanek posted before. Here is it again:disease: an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factorsTo me, it fits perfectly on addiction. Note that it does not mention anything about causing it by a choice or ending it by a choice. It is irrelevant.

shanek

6th June 2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Then I have understood you correctly. If they need both to be insane, and they miss one, then they are not insane. That's what you are saying, right?

No; I'm saying they need both to be acting out of free will.

Insanity is the inability to tell right from wrong. If you have that, you cannot be said to be acting from your own free will. This is why insanity is a defense to murder, for example.

Control should be obvious. If your finger pulled the trigger, did you kill him? Not if someone else knocked you unconscious, put the gun in your hand and your finger on the trigger, aimed the gun, and then used their finger to pull your finger back on the trigger. No control, no acting out of free will.

The information about the destructiveness of their behaviour is available to all insane people.

But they don't have the ability to understand it. That's why they're considered insane. That's actually the legal definition:

"mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior...The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong," following the "M'Naughten rule" from 19th century England." —dictionary.law.com

Nice selective quoting. You forgot the thing that proves you wrong:

No, it doesn't:

Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed Panic Attack

Your claim was that panic attacks had nothing to do with phobias.

I've said all along that phobias can trigger panic attacks, but that they don't necessarily and that panic attacks can be triggered by other things. Your own source uses the word "may," confirming this.

You even claimed that if someone has a panic attack becuase of something it is not really a phobia, but a reaction to having a panic attack.

Yes. Again, some people have panic attacks triggered by flashing lights.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Again, the quote is, "The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable." When I made that very point above, you disagreed.

The understanding of human biology has changed immensely.

That doesn't affect the statistics.

No, I am not. I'm only discussing the tool for identification.

Then it's irrelevant to what we're talking about.

This part of the discussion is only about the definition of that word.

No, it's not. You're shifting the parameters of the discussion away from the original claims.

I'm talking about definitions.

Then it's irrelevant.

Explain why this is relevant.

It's relevant because we're talking about the thing being measured. You merely think it's irrelevant because you're focusing on the unit used to measure it. But whether it's feet or meters, the thing is still what it is.

No, it doesn't. It means exactly what I said: if mainstream society considers being mainstream a vital function, and considers Trekkies out of the mainstream, then being a Trekkie is considered a disease.

Then you're not using the scientific definition.

You said: "there's always a choice." The way I understand the word 'always' is as no exceptions. So there is no exception for the insane.

Except that I had previously mentioned that insanity was an exception. The word "always" is not intended to override any mentioned exceptions. That's what an exception is.

You have however not acknowledged that phobias, compulsive behaviour or addictions can be forms of insanity,

Because there has been no evidence presented for it. Everything you've posted merely confirms what I've said.

There maybe the understanding but not the control.

If there were no control, there would be no way to kick the habit, at least without some form of medication. Yet, addicts kick the habit all the time.

Or if the addict is in denial there maybe control without understanding.

That's not what denial is. Consider a smoker who denies that smoking causes cancer. That's denial, but it's not "control without understanding."

Sorry, you'll have to explain to me why it is not a contradiction.

Because, as I said, people want different things when they're in different environments.

(Nice dodge of the genetic link evidence, by the way!)

I didn't dodge it; it just isn't indicated by the evidence. Child abuse can be said to "run in families," too, but it isn't genetic, it's because children of abusers suffer psychological damage that can end up causing them to abuse their children when they grow up.

Besides, your own source says it's not the alcoholism that's genetic; it's anxiety and depression that alcoholics are self-medicating for. And that only accounts for "30-70% of alcoholics."

Your second link specifically said that it "remains a mystery."

I really don't see what there is to dodge. If there were an alcoholism gene, the statistics should bear it out. You still need to explain the data in the source I provided. You can't just brush it off by claiming it was 1990.

username

6th June 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
To me, it fits perfectly on addiction. Note that it does not mention anything about causing it by a choice or ending it by a choice. It is irrelevant.

To you it is irrelevant, but to Shanek and myself it is entirely relevant. That is why I don't think there will be a meeting of the minds on this issue.

Lack of agreement on definitions.

Your position, as I understand it, is that if a person does something which has detrimental effects it can fairly be called a disease. The argument, as I understand it, is that there could be a pre-existing defect of some kind that caused or predisposed the individual to perform the detrimental action or it could be that the action wasn't initially problematic, but it caused a defect which then made performing the action less voluntary in the future.

For my purposes I am not comfortable with such a broad definition of disease because of the potential cost/legislation factors that can result. I also feel this is too 'soft' a definition as it has great potential to shift the burden of responsibility for actions from the individual to the medical field. People who drive over little old ladies while drunk could plead they have a disease, they aren't responsible for the actions, and escape criminal punishment as one example of the implications of regarding alcoholism as a disease, something one has no control over.

I think Shanek would agree with me on this.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that unless we can persuade you that a more narrow definition is proper or you can persuade us that a more expansive definition is proper, we simply aren't going to agree.

After 4 pages I don't think either of us is likely to be persuaded to change our perspective.

In the case of alcoholism though, there is no treatment for the disease. Willpower remains the only method of 'curing' this disease and retaking control/responsibility for one's actions. This makes alcoholism a very odd disease if it is one.

shanek

6th June 2005, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
The social definition is the scientific definition.

No, it isn't. That's what I've been trying to explain to you.

To me, it fits perfectly on addiction.

And yet, you've been unable to support even one of those qualities as it links to addiction.

Note that it does not mention anything about causing it by a choice or ending it by a choice. It is irrelevant.

No, it's not, because all of those qualities are antithetical to a choice.

shanek

6th June 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by username
In the case of alcoholism though, there is no treatment for the disease. Willpower remains the only method of 'curing' this disease and retaking control/responsibility for one's actions. This makes alcoholism a very odd disease if it is one.

Not to mention that that "method" hasn't changed one iota in almost 60 years...

CBL4

6th June 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by username
Lack of agreement on definitionsThis is clearly the crux of the issue - the definition. We can easily define disease in such a manner that alcoholism is/isn't a disease. What's the point?

When I took biology my text book said that were two kingdoms of organism (plants and animal) but there were organisms that did not fit cleanly in either. In a book published this year, I read that there are six kingdoms. Scientists could have spent decades arguing over the proper placement for these organisms but they chose the productive alternative of creating new categories for certain organisms that do not fit in the standard ones.

Addiction, depression and other affliction do not fit in the standard disease or choice categories. Give them new categories and quit the silly bickering.

CBL

username

6th June 2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by CBL4

Addiction, depression and other affliction do not fit in the standard disease or choice categories. Give them new categories and quit the silly bickering.

CBL

I would agree with this.

rdtjr

6th June 2005, 12:45 PM

I find it interesting that so many people would claim that a legally intoxicated person can legally responsible for making the decision to get in a vehicle and drive or not (the basis of our DUI laws), but that a legally sober person isn't in enough control to be responsible for not drinking or using drugs in the first place.

Which is it? You are responsible for your behavior if you are intoxicated and drive? Or you aren't responsible for your behavior if you are sober and get drunk/use drugs? I see no way in which those two viewpoints can be resolved. They are mutually exclusive, yet many folks will continue to insist that individuals be prosecuted to the highest degree the law allows in one instance, but simply can't help themselves in the other.

Like to know where some of the other posters fall on the above. Can drunk drivers be heal accountable, then why not a sober person choosing to use drugs? Or a sober person has no choice to use because of an addictive disease, and an intoxicated driver doesn't have the mental faculties to judge his own capabilities and also can't be held responsible for his actions?

kimiko

6th June 2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Yes. Again, some people have panic attacks triggered by flashing lights. That sounds like a seizure disorder, not a panic attack. Seizures are welll known to have flashing lights as a possible trigger.

username

6th June 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by rdtjr
[B]I find it interesting that so many people would claim that a legally intoxicated person can legally responsible for making the decision to get in a vehicle and drive or not (the basis of our DUI laws), but that a legally sober person isn't in enough control to be responsible for not drinking or using drugs in the first place.

Which is it?

I think the sober person and the drunk person are both responsible for their actions when sober as well as drunk.

However, alcohol is well known to impair judgement which means the intoxicated person may well make irresponsible decisions that they wouldn't have made while sober.

This doesn't absolve the drunk of responsibility, it simply explains why things sometimes happen. It is understandable, but not necessarily forgivable from a legal standpoint.

kimiko

6th June 2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by username
Your position, as I understand it, is that if a person does something which has detrimental effects it can fairly be called a disease. I don't think that is what she is saying. It's not a disease unless it interferes with a major life function, and/or is recognized by society as deviance recquiring medical treatment. It is the agreement of society that labels someone ill/ sick/diseased, and designates what legitimate medicine, treatment, behavior and disease classifications are.

...the role of being sick as an institutionalized role may be said to constitute a set of conditions necessary to enable the physician to bring his competence to bear on the situation. It is not only that the patient has a need to be helped, that that this need is institutionally categorized, that the nature and implications of this need are socially recognized, and the kind of help, the appropriate general pattern of action in relation to the source of help, are defined. It is not only the sick person's own condition and personal reactions to what should be done about it which are involved, but he is placed in an institutionally defined framework which mobilizes others in his siuation in support of the same patterns which are imputed to him...The fact that others than the patient himself often define that he is sick, or sick enough for certain measure to be taken, is significant. Parsons, 1970 (bolding mine)...the sick role can be seen as a limited and conditional set of privileges and obligations relative to a deviant identity. -Twaddle, 1979the prominent characteristics of chronic illness are that they (1) are long-term; (2) are uncertain; (3) require proportionately large efforts at palliation... -Strauss, 1987

Mental illness:a condition in which a person manifests behaviors, feelings, ideas, and/or thought processes that are..serious enough to cause personal anxiety, discomfort, and problems in functioning Mental disorder: a state of personal distress or discomfort leading to impairment that threatens interpersonal relationships and individual well-being Gupta, 1993

Medicalization: a process by which nonmedical problems become defined and treated as medical problems, usualy in terms of illnesses or disorders -Conrad, 1992

An example would be hyperactive children, once seen as a defect of character, now recognized as a medical disorder like ADHD which can be treated in a medical way with medication or other therapies. The opposite is demedicalization, like when homosexuality was taken out of the DSM, no longer recognized as a medical disorder, but as a normal mental/physiological variation.

Deviant behaviors like alcoholism, eating disorders, etc. or normal life events like menopause, childbirth, etc. can and have been medicalized when society allows them to receive medical treatment.

kimiko

6th June 2005, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by rdtjr
I find it interesting that so many people would claim that a legally intoxicated person can legally responsible for making the decision to get in a vehicle and drive or not (the basis of our DUI laws), but that a legally sober person isn't in enough control to be responsible for not drinking or using drugs in the first place.

Which is it? You are responsible for your behavior if you are intoxicated and drive? Or you aren't responsible for your behavior if you are sober and get drunk/use drugs? I see no way in which those two viewpoints can be resolved. They are mutually exclusive, yet many folks will continue to insist that individuals be prosecuted to the highest degree the law allows in one instance, but simply can't help themselves in the other.

Like to know where some of the other posters fall on the above. Can drunk drivers be heal accountable, then why not a sober person choosing to use drugs? Or a sober person has no choice to use because of an addictive disease, and an intoxicated driver doesn't have the mental faculties to judge his own capabilities and also can't be held responsible for his actions? When people are found not guilty by reason of insanity, they aren't released to society again. There is a recognition that they are responsible for the criminal action, but not guilty in the way a person with normal faculties would be. It varies by state how the responsibility and guilt are determined and labeled. Anyway, they are sent to forensic mental facilities for containment and treatment.

Personally, I find both an alcoholic taking the action of drinking, and a person under the influence of alcohol who decides to drive to be in a grey area concerning responsibility. Prison has well known negative effects on the inmates, and I wonder if drunk drivers wouldn't be better treated in a pseudo criminal fashion, where they receive treatment for their poor behavior and perform service to the community or something as punishment.

Earthborn

6th June 2005, 03:20 PM

I've said all along that phobias can trigger panic attacksNo, you didn't. This started all with you claiming to have an 'extreme phobia'. Since you can 'suck up' your fear and don't need to fear a panic attack, it is proven that you don't have an extreme phobia but instead you are only mildly phobic.

You claimed that phobias and panic attacks had nothing to do with eachother. I quote: "The former is a medical condition for which there is a physical cause. It's like any other disease: they need help to treat it. The latter is a psychological disorder, and although it can be treated medically, it's still mostly a matter of free will for the person with the phobia."

If a panic attack has a physical cause and phobia hasn't, then a phobia cannot cause a panic attack. Since they can, you have been shown to be wrong. Just because you subtly adjust your claim later on does not mean you have not been shown wrong at one time.Your own source uses the word "may," confirming this.I have never said that a phobia always causes a panic attack. I have specifically said from the start that !!!EXTREME!!! phobias CAN cause panic attacks. That was a direct response to your claim that you had an extreme phobia, which I showed is rather mild in comparison to severe cases.Yes. Again, some people have panic attacks triggered by flashing lights.Completely irrelevant.Again, the quote is, "The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable." When I made that very point above, you disagreed.Where did I disagree with that?That doesn't affect the statistics.There are new statistics. Such as twin studies that show that an identical twin has a greater chance then a fraternal twin of becoming an alcoholic if their twinsibling is alcoholic. I think that is good circumstantial evidence that genetics plays an important role. Also my sources mention that there have been statistics that showed that alcoholism runs in families even before your source was written.Then it's irrelevant to what we're talking about.Do you even remember what we were talking about? Let me refresh your memory: we were talking about the definition of disease. Therefore discussing definitions is highly relevant.Then you're not using the scientific definition.Yes, I am. Only one of the terms in the definition, 'vital function' is defined differently.The word "always" is not intended to override any mentioned exceptions. That's what an exception is.By allowing even one exception, you disprove your own claim. You claimed that "there is always a choice", but there isn't always a choice because there isn't one in exceptional cases.Because there has been no evidence presented for it.There is also no evidence that shows that someone can cure themselves merely by making a choice.If there were no control, there would be no way to kick the habit, at least without some form of medication. Yet, addicts kick the habit all the time.That just proves that in some cases they can regain control. It does not prove that they always have it.Because, as I said, people want different things when they're in different environments.You are not explaining yourself. I asked you to explain why "All of those affect what the driver wants." and "Because it isn't changing what the person wants" isn't a contradiction. Of course people want different things in different environments, so why do you say that "it isn't changing what the person wants" ? I think those different environments do change what people want, wouldn't you agree?Child abuse can be said to "run in families," too, but it isn't genetic, it's because children of abusers suffer psychological damage that can end up causing them to abuse their children when they grow up.However... If it was shown that identical twins were more similar to eachother when it comes to child abuse then fraternal twins, I think it would be a good indication that genetics play a role. Not conclusive of course, but good evidence nonetheless.Besides, your own source says it's not the alcoholism that's genetic; it's anxiety and depression that alcoholics are self-medicating for.That is one possible initial cause of alcoholism. Nobody expects to find a gene that directly causes people to drink alcohol, but that does not mean that genes don't have a strong influence on developing alcoholism.And that only accounts for "30-70% of alcoholics.Nobody expects to find a gene that causes people to become alcoholics in 100% of cases. That's just not how genetics works. 30%-70% is good evidence of a strong genetic influence, it is about as strong a link as most genetic illnesses.If there were an alcoholism gene, the statistics should bear it out. You still need to explain the data in the source I provided.Your source provides very little data. The following passage is about as close to providing data as it gets:Recent studies have also been said to imply that alcoholism is a hereditary disease. But that is not what the genetic research shows. In the first place, these studies provide no evidence of a genetic factor in the largest group of heavy drinkers those who have significant associated problems but are not diagnosable as alcoholics. Even among the minority who can be so diagnosed, the data suggest that only a minority have the pertinent genetic background. And even in this category, a minority of a minority, studies report that the majority do not become alcoholics (Goodwin, et al., 1973; Cloninger, et al., 1981; Deitrich and Spuhler, 1984).Note that it does not give any figures and only mentions 'minorities'. It first discusses an irrelevant group for any discussion about alcoholism: problem drinkers who are not alcoholists. Then it mentions that only a minority of alcoholists have a genetic background of alcoholism. Ergo: it shows that some alcoholists have a genetic background of alcoholism.

Although the author tries to diminish the importance of this group, he admits that there is statistical evidence that some people may have been influenced by genetics to become alcoholists. That this group is a minority is irrelevant as many genetic diseases only cause problems in a minority of the people carrying the gene.
It is rather unfortunate that the author doesn't tell us how large that minority is. 49% would be a minority, but also extremely strong evidence of a genetic influence.

Earthborn

6th June 2005, 03:26 PM

Your position, as I understand it, is that if a person does something which has detrimental effects it can fairly be called a disease. The argument, as I understand it, is that there could be a pre-existing defect of some kind that caused or predisposed the individual to perform the detrimental action or it could be that the action wasn't initially problematic, but it caused a defect which then made performing the action less voluntary in the future.Sounds good to me.People who drive over little old ladies while drunk could plead they have a disease, they aren't responsible for the actions, and escape criminal punishmentThat's what it comes down to, isn't it? You are just seeking justification to punish people. This whole philosophy of 'personal reponsibility' and 'free will' is just to excuse doing bad things to bad people. Sorry, but I just don't care about that at all.

If a person displays dangerous behaviour, such as drunk driving, I don't see what the point is of putting that person in jail for a while and letting him out later. Instead, I think the dangerous behaviour should be corrected.

When a drunk driver 'escapes criminal punishment' but instead is treated compassionately in such a way that he learns not to drive drunk anymore, then I can't really see what is wrong with that.Willpower remains the only method of 'curing' this disease and retaking control/responsibility for one's actions.The way I see it, 'willpower' is just a vague term for when an addiction walks on its last legs because of a spontaneous remission and the addict starts to experience a feeling of 'control' again. Someone who lacks 'willpower' cannot make 'willpower' and cure themselves. When someone has 'willpower' it just means that s/he is partially cured.

That's just my philosophical belief of course. I'm just trying to avoid that rather problematic concept of Free Will.This makes alcoholism a very odd disease if it is one.Only if you are stuck with the remnants of the Free Will concept. I consider behaviour as a vital function as every other, and see that a disease can distrub it, but a disease can also go away. If behaviour is a vital function like all the others, with no magical properties such as 'Free Will', then addiction is a disease like all the others, because it just affects a vital function.

shanek

6th June 2005, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by kimiko
I don't think that is what she is saying. It's not a disease unless it interferes with a major life function, and/or is recognized by society as deviance recquiring medical treatment. It is the agreement of society that labels someone ill/ sick/diseased, and designates what legitimate medicine, treatment, behavior and disease classifications are.

So, if "society" "agreed" that cancer isn't a disease, all of the suffering, damage, and death that cancer brings would magically be eliminated?

Sorry; there are objective criteria here.

Earthborn

6th June 2005, 03:29 PM

shanek

6th June 2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by kimiko
When people are found not guilty by reason of insanity, they aren't released to society again.

Wrong. If the insanity was temporary, they are released immediately. If the insanity is continuing, well, "A claim by a criminal defendant of his/her insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns." (dictionary.law.com definition of "insanity" again)

If you're insane, you don't get put on trial for the crime. You have to be sane to be on trial, in which case, if you're found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are released immediately.

kimiko

6th June 2005, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by shanek
So, if "society" "agreed" that cancer isn't a disease, all of the suffering, damage, and death that cancer brings would magically be eliminated? The suffering, damage and death would remain, but society wouldn't proscribe that those were reasons to receive treatment or be afforded any different expectations. The expectation would be to either get better or die.

Earthborn

6th June 2005, 03:32 PM

So, if "society" "agreed" that cancer isn't a disease, all of the suffering, damage, and death that cancer brings would magically be eliminated?Of course not. Don't be silly. A thing stays what it is, however it is defined.Sorry; there are objective criteria here.Yes, there are objective criteria. Objective criteria decided by society.

kimiko

6th June 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by shanek
If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns." (dictionary.law.com definition of "insanity" again) That's what I meant, I misspoke. They are found insane but not within the context of a trial. If you're insane, you don't get put on trial for the crime. You have to be sane to be on trial, in which case, if you're found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are released immediately. You can also be mentally ill, but not considered insane.
http://www.mhatexas.org/InsanityDefense

shanek

6th June 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
No, you didn't. This started all with you claiming to have an 'extreme phobia'. Since you can 'suck up' your fear and don't need to fear a panic attack, it is proven that you don't have an extreme phobia but instead you are only mildly phobic.

Your only "proof" for this is that the phobia did not trigger a panic attack. I'm showing, as YOUR OWN SOURCES DO, that a panic attack is a separate problem.

If a panic attack has a physical cause and phobia hasn't, then a phobia cannot cause a panic attack.

That's completely insane. There's nothing stopping the phobia, or the object of the phobia, being the trigger for the panic attack. Your logic doesn't work at all.

I have never said that a phobia always causes a panic attack. I have specifically said from the start that !!!EXTREME!!! phobias CAN cause panic attacks.

You said that a phobia cannot be extreme unless it DOES cause a panic attack. Something you have done NOTHING AT ALL to support.

Completely irrelevant.

No, it's not! It's completely relevant: if a panic attack can be triggered by any outside stimuli, the fact that a phobia can trigger a panic attack doesn't say anything special about the phobia.

Where did I disagree with that?

It goes to the question of "understanding" that we've been discussing. If you agree with it after all, then that whole side discussion was for naught.

There are new statistics. Such as twin studies that show that an identical twin has a greater chance then a fraternal twin of becoming an alcoholic if their twinsibling is alcoholic. Also my sources mention that there have been statistics that showed that alcoholism runs in families even before your source was written.

And these studies are better than the studies saying otherwise, why?

Remember that studies must be repeatable to be valid. Many such studies have been done. According to Heath, AC; Todorov, AA; Nelson, EC; Madden, PAF; Bucholz, KK; Martin, NG (2002): Gene-environment interaction effects on behavioral variation and risk of complex disorders: The example of alcoholism and other psychiatric disorders, Twin Research 5,30-37, showed how such studies often overestimate genetics tests.

They've found the same problems trying to find the "homosexual gene." Plenty of studies confirm it, while other studies show there's no such thing. In Hershberger, SL (1997): A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation, Journal of Sex Research 34, 212-222, it was found that among identical twins where at least one was gay, the other was found to be gay 0% more often than average in males but 48% in females, showing a strong genetic link to lesbianism but none to male homosexuality. But in Bailey, JM; Dunne, MP; Martin, NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 524-536, found just the opposite: a 40% contribution for males and 0% for females.

Do you even remember what we were talking about? Let me refresh your memory: we were talking about the definition of disease.

No, we're not. We're talking about the argument that "alcoholism is a disease, therefore it's not the alcoholic's fault." YOU were the one who brought up the definition of "disease."

There is also no evidence that shows that someone can cure themselves merely by making a choice.

Yes, there is! It happens all the time!

That just proves that in some cases they can regain control.

Ah, yes, right, they just HAPPENED to go into spontaneous remission at exactly the same time they decided to give up the object of their addiction. I forgot. :rolleyes:

I asked you to explain why "All of those affect what the driver wants." and "Because it isn't changing what the person wants" isn't a contradiction.

Because we're talking about two separate things. With the former, we're talking about a change of environment where the person suffers direct ill effects of speeding (the discomfort of going over the table too fast) and therefore doesn't want to speed, whereas just putting up numbers on a sign doesn't do that. Are you really this confused?

I think those different environments do change what people want, wouldn't you agree?

Depends. Yes in the case of a speed table, no in the case of numbers on a sign. How can you fail to understand this? How is this in any way a contradiction?

However... If it was shown that identical twins were more similar to eachother when it comes to child abuse then fraternal twins, I think it would be a good indication that genetics play a role.

Except that there are all sorts of problems with twin studies. See above.

Nobody expects to find a gene that directly causes people to drink alcohol, but that does not mean that genes don't have a strong influence on developing alcoholism.

If you want to say that someone's genetics makes it easier for them to become physically addicted to a substance, that's one thing, and I can go along with that. But that's not the same thing as what we're talking about.

Your source provides very little data.

It references all of the sources used. Check them out.

Earthborn

6th June 2005, 05:39 PM

It goes to the question of "understanding" that we've been discussing.That was about addiction, so it does not contradict anything in the DSM IV about phobia.And these studies are better than the studies saying otherwise, why?Those studies are not necessarily better, but their existence does contradict the claim that there is no evidence that shows alcoholism is influenced by genetics.

This claim: "There is NO EVIDENCE that it does. All of the statistical evidence suggests otherwise." is proven false. There is such evidence.Plenty of studies confirm it, while other studies show there's no such thing.Which means there is evidence supporting both positions.No, we're not.I'll quote the beginning of the discussion and let everybody else decide what we were talking about:The Fifth paragraph (in the same quote) mentions that the term 'disease' is socially defined. It fails to explain to me why that is problematic.You don't see the fact that they're using any objective scientific definition as a problem?It doesn't say that. It says that the definition is socially defined, which is true of all objective scientific definitions.Ah, yes, right, they just HAPPENED to go into spontaneous remission at exactly the same time they decided to give up the object of their addiction.Oh, for crying out loud... How am I ever going to explain anything to someone who just keeps misreading everything I write?

Maybe with a picture:
http://earthborn.prolinea.org/addict.gif

The top graph shows your claim. The thick black line depicts the severity of the addiction, the x-axis is the development in time. The red line shows the moment the addict choses to beat his addiction. According to you, the addiction decreases in severity because of the decision. It starts to decrease after the addict makes it. The addict experiences some fallbacks after the decision as he struggles to beat the addiction, but eventually he succeeds.

Now look at my claim in the bottom graph. My claim is that the addict cannot make the decision to beat his addiction when the addiction is at its most severe, and can only make that decision when it starts to decrease. In my view, the decision is one of the first signs that the addiction is waning, but it is not the cause of it. The fact that the addict experiences struggles to beat his addiction is not proof that his decision caused it, it is only proof that the decrease doesn't happen in a straight line. Fallbacks into old behaviour are to be expected in many mental illnesses.

In your claim, the decision is basically a causeless event that cures the addiction. In mine, the decision is caused by the first decrease in severity of the addiction. It is not coincidental, it is cause and effect. Both claims are consistent with the evidence. Mine does not 'multiply the entities' by assuming 'Free Will'.With the former, we're talking about a change of environment where the person suffers direct ill effects of speedingYes, that's when you said: "All of those affect what the driver wants." Are you now saying that when you said: "Because it isn't changing what the person wants; it's just changing the environment. And people want varying things given the environment." you were talking about a completely different way to change the environment? Could you warn me next time when you are changing the subject?If you want to say that someone's genetics makes it easier for them to become physically addicted to a substance, that's one thing, and I can go along with that. But that's not the same thing as what we're talking about.It is what I am talking about. If it isn't what you are talking about, then you'll have to explain to me what it is you are talking about.It references all of the sources used. Check them out.Good thing I have all scientific papers from 1960 to 1990 on my bookshelf... :rolleyes:

Well, I typed some of those names in Google. I didn't find any of the papers, but I did find some that refered to them. Oh, dear, more evidence that suggests a genetic influence on addictive behaviour... (http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/89.pdf) (PDF File).

shanek

6th June 2005, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Those studies are not necessarily better, but their existence does contradict the claim that there is no evidence that shows alcoholism is influenced by genetics.

Sorry, but contradicted evidence is no evidence at all. By your argument, there is "evidence" that the Earth is flat and the sun moves around it. "Twin studies" are bogus and tell you nothing.

My claim is that the addict cannot make the decision to beat his addiction when the addiction is at its most severe, and can only make that decision when it starts to decrease. In my view, the decision is one of the first signs that the addiction is waning, but it is not the cause of it. The fact that the addict experiences struggles to beat his addiction is not proof that his decision caused it, it is only proof that the decrease doesn't happen in a straight line. Fallbacks into old behaviour are to be expected in many mental illnesses.

Problem: most addicts, after quitting, fall back off the wagon. This is perfectly explainable if it's a matter of willpower, because sometimes people just don't have the will to make difficult decisions. But it completely contradicts your idea that the disease is somehow being cured. Unless you can figure out how, all of a sudden, the remission suddenly reverses itself. And since addicts can keep going on and off the wagon, we have a strange sort of disease that reasserts itself, then remisses, multiple times over. Very odd indeed.

It is what I am talking about. If it isn't what you are talking about, then you'll have to explain to me what it is you are talking about.

If someone smokes and gets lung cancer as a result, then lung cancer is the disease, not smoking. Same kind of thing here. If someone has depression or anxiety, and this leads to a drinking problem, the disease is the depression or the anxiety, not the drinking. We're trying to get to a cause, not a symptom or an effect.

CFLarsen

7th June 2005, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by shanek
There is NO EVIDENCE that it does. All of the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.

Originally posted by shanek
Sorry, but contradicted evidence is no evidence at all. By your argument, there is "evidence" that the Earth is flat and the sun moves around it. "Twin studies" are bogus and tell you nothing.

Two points:

1. You are moving the goalposts. First, you say that there is NO EVIDENCE - in caps, no less. Then you admit that there is evidence, but it is "contradicted", and therefore no evidence at all.

Sorry, but that means that you were wrong. There is evidence.

2. I think this will come as a surprise to you, but there is actually evidence that the Earth is flat and the sun moves around it. The evidence is not "bogus".

Here's why: You don't understand how science works at all. Any scientific evidence is provisional - we have evidence based on what we know and discover, at this moment. The evidence that the Earth is flat and the sun moves around it was very sound at the time, because people simply didn't know enough. Sure, the evidence was overwhelmingly superseded by contradictory evidence, but that doesn't mean that the flat-Earth evidence isn't there.

Today, we know that gravity is what keeps us glued to the Earth. We know that, based on scientific evidence. But there is no reason why we can't, in the future, find even stronger evidence that it really is goblins, pulling us down.

Not very likely, but then, the idea of genes is not very likely, either - until you discover the evidence.

What you are doing is drawing a final conclusion, not based on the evidence or scientific principles, but on what you would like the result to be. You've already made up your mind about how the world works, and damn everything else.

Earthborn

7th June 2005, 08:13 PM

Sorry, but contradicted evidence is no evidence at all.It is evidence that your claim that there is no contradictory evidence is demonstratably false.

And how do you expect me to contradict your claim without presenting contradictory evidence?By your argument, there is "evidence" that the Earth is flat and the sun moves around it.Actually you are like one who maintains that the old evidence from long ago that proves "the Earth is flat" is still just as good as more recent evidence that shows that it is not."Twin studies" are bogus and tell you nothing.It should come as no surprise to anyone that you feel that way. You have never acknowledged the validity of any study that hints at something you disagree with. To justify your belief that such studies are 'bogus' you point to some obvious criticisms of such studies and claim that because such criticisms are possible, the study is completely worthless. You forget of course that 1) all studies can be so criticised, even the ones you agree with, 2) fair criticism of a study does not mean it is worthless. It means that one must be cautious when drawing conclusions from it. 3) Sometimes an easily critiseable study is as good as it gets. As far as statistics about genetic influence is concerned, twin studies are about as good as it gets: you have two people with an identical genetic make up. So everything that is different in them must be caused by something else then their genes. When it comes to alcoholism, they often are similar to eachother which shows us that genetic influence can't be ruled out.

And then we have studies that show that adopted children are often more similar to their biological parents then their adoptive parents when it comes to alcolism...And since addicts can keep going on and off the wagon, we have a strange sort of disease that reasserts itself, then remisses, multiple times over. Very odd indeed.Very odd. Except for mental illnesses. Depression, which you have acknowledged as a disease, often follows a very similar pattern. According to many neuropsychiatrists, addiction is a very similar disease to depression, so it should be expected to have a similar evolution.

Your interpretation just adds yet another poorly defined concept to "multiply the entities": willpower. As if "free will" wasn't problematic enough.If someone has depression or anxiety, and this leads to a drinking problem, the disease is the depression or the anxiety, not the drinking.According to neuropsychiatrists depression and addiction are both different ways a single neurological disorder manifests itself. Both have the same characteristics, only in differing degrees. One drinks himself a liverciroses to deal with the symptoms, the other hangs himself.