5 ms·
It's worth reading the book then ;) The author is a philosopher who is very careful about language and his arguments. He has written 2 other books on this topi
by yboris 4y ago
It's worth reading the book then ;)
The author is a philosopher who is very careful about language and his arguments. He has written 2 other books on this topic (Drugs & Rights, and Ovecriminalization -- I read both and can recommend).
One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs.
- tablespoon 4y ago> One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs. Honestly, that sounds like nonsense. Not having some compact math-like definition for the category doesn't mean there's no definition for it.
- yboris 4y agoClearly the government doesn't have any -- it's just a matter of what's on a list. Sure we can say that the more a substance is addictive, the more we want to put it into the category of "drug"; the more it impairs someone, the more it fits in our vague sense of what "drug" means. The author isn't saying "look, no necessary or sufficient condition exists, therefore checkmate". Also, I hope you agree that the word "definition" means something akin to "a statement of the exact meaning of a word" - and the more vague a thing's category, the less we have a definition of it.