5 ms·

Not everyone will respond the same to every drug, but the question of whether drug A is one I should take is not -- or at least shouldn't be -- simply a matter

Not everyone will respond the same to every drug, but the question of whether drug A is one I should take is not -- or at least shouldn't be -- simply a matter of whether the drug is going to hurt me. The big questions in life aren't ones the scientists can answer for us.

netizen-936824 5y ago
Nobody ever implied that safety of a given substance was a sole determinant in the question of using a drug? What is this "big question" you speak of?
- pmdulaney 5y ago
  I didn't speak of a specific "big question" but rather big questions in general. Dave Hume (paraphrased) said, "You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'". Science can tell you a good deal about reality but can't tell you what you ought to do. For example, science can tell you what risks a baby boy will be subjected to if he is circumcised; it can't tell you whether or not -- in the big picture -- you should go through with the procedure. Science perhaps can tell you the likelihood that you will die if you jump into icy water in an attempt to save your drowning child. It can't tell you if that is the right thing to do.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    So then why are politicians telling people what they can and cannot ingest? Do you think the scientific process couldn't answer questions about how compounds can help people? Because that is what I meant when I said to let scientists sort it out. Politicians don't, and never have had, the answers to questions like that because they have no knowledge of or experience with these sort of subjects. Yet they insist on banning substances from not only being used, but also being researched. So again, why are politicians making these decisions? Why do governmental bodies put themselves in the way of research into some substances? The DEA has held back scientific progress in the field of psychiatry for decades. It's time that ended. Not to mention, do we not have freedom? Do US citizens not have bodily autonomy? It does not appear that they do. People should have the freedom from others telling them what to do with their brain, and the freedom to choose what to do with their brain themselves.
    - pmdulaney 5y ago
      The question of whether governments should regulate drugs is entirely orthogonal to my point. I was just gently suggesting that perhaps of their own volition people should decide to live more or less drug free. Of course, if you have an organic condition that is greatly ameliorated by the use of drugs, go for it.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        I think making that choice would be fine, and I agree with it for most situations. Drugs, to me, are primarily a tool. Yes some of them can be quite enjoyable but I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to use them in that way all the time (recreationally). Personally I do think its okay to use recreationally sometimes, though recreational doses generally aren't conducive to normal societal functions. It seems likely that we agree on most points, so I apologise for assuming the opposite. The moralization of drug use has been used as an excuse to ban substances, oppress communities, and has harmed research, so it makes me upset when I see the view espoused. While I think its okay to hold that view, it shouldn't be forced on others. Just like religion. Side note: alcohol is included in my definition of drugs, along with caffeine.
        pmdulaney 5y ago
        Thanks for the interaction -- I enjoyed it.

netizen-936824 5y ago

Nobody ever implied that safety of a given substance was a sole determinant in the question of using a drug? What is this "big question" you speak of?

pmdulaney 5y ago
I didn't speak of a specific "big question" but rather big questions in general. Dave Hume (paraphrased) said, "You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'". Science can tell you a good deal about reality but can't tell you what you ought to do. For example, science can tell you what risks a baby boy will be subjected to if he is circumcised; it can't tell you whether or not -- in the big picture -- you should go through with the procedure. Science perhaps can tell you the likelihood that you will die if you jump into icy water in an attempt to save your drowning child. It can't tell you if that is the right thing to do.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  So then why are politicians telling people what they can and cannot ingest? Do you think the scientific process couldn't answer questions about how compounds can help people? Because that is what I meant when I said to let scientists sort it out. Politicians don't, and never have had, the answers to questions like that because they have no knowledge of or experience with these sort of subjects. Yet they insist on banning substances from not only being used, but also being researched. So again, why are politicians making these decisions? Why do governmental bodies put themselves in the way of research into some substances? The DEA has held back scientific progress in the field of psychiatry for decades. It's time that ended. Not to mention, do we not have freedom? Do US citizens not have bodily autonomy? It does not appear that they do. People should have the freedom from others telling them what to do with their brain, and the freedom to choose what to do with their brain themselves.
  - pmdulaney 5y ago
    The question of whether governments should regulate drugs is entirely orthogonal to my point. I was just gently suggesting that perhaps of their own volition people should decide to live more or less drug free. Of course, if you have an organic condition that is greatly ameliorated by the use of drugs, go for it.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      I think making that choice would be fine, and I agree with it for most situations. Drugs, to me, are primarily a tool. Yes some of them can be quite enjoyable but I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to use them in that way all the time (recreationally). Personally I do think its okay to use recreationally sometimes, though recreational doses generally aren't conducive to normal societal functions. It seems likely that we agree on most points, so I apologise for assuming the opposite. The moralization of drug use has been used as an excuse to ban substances, oppress communities, and has harmed research, so it makes me upset when I see the view espoused. While I think its okay to hold that view, it shouldn't be forced on others. Just like religion. Side note: alcohol is included in my definition of drugs, along with caffeine.
      - pmdulaney 5y ago
        Thanks for the interaction -- I enjoyed it.