Gary Johnson for President

[Wolf DeVoon]

On 7/19/2016 at 3:36 PM, SteveWolfer said:

I see Trump as more of a con man than a politician

I was on this page for a different reason and happened to bump into this earlier comment from Steve Wolfer who, unfortunately, isn't present to reply further. It saddens me to see bright people say such things, as if they are morally superior to Mr. Trump, take no notice of the incredible energy he expends efficiently and courageously.

[BaalChatzaf]

11 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I was on this page for a different reason and happened to bump into this earlier comment from Steve Wolfer who, unfortunately, isn't present to reply further. It saddens me to see bright people say such things, as if they are morally superior to Mr. Trump, take no notice of the incredible energy he expends efficiently and courageously.

Fine.  Now what skill has he shown to lead a nation (a political entity)  as opposed to running a business?   Hillary has shown little.  Trump has shown less. 

Another reason I wish to hang trump around the neck of our government  like a millstone....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

It saddens me to see bright people say such things, as if they are morally superior to Mr. Trump, take no notice of the incredible energy he expends efficiently and courageously.

Wolf,

Steve is one of the good guys.

He sees this election through his own lens, like we all do through our respective lenses (or frames).

If he ever comes to find common ground with Trump admirers, it will come in his time, not ours. And that's as it should be since it's his mind.

btw - I am very, very patient with the good guys...

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I am very, very patient with the good guys...

Me too, I trust, in my own way. I was merely expressing an emotion. No comment about anyone else, really.

[Peter]

One of my ideas was for a Trump-ian platform plank that he would legalize hard drugs, like Johnson might do, so that drug money would not fuel inner city gangs. But, it doesn’t look like Donald Trump is going to take my suggestion to initiate a two pronged war on inner city violence, (which would have the added benefit of cutting into some of Gary Johnson’s ten percent.) Trump is definitely in favor of closing the border to drug smugglers and terrorists and he said hard drugs are killing middle America, which is code talk for white America. Well, because drugs are not legal they are killing inner city America too, because it funds violence. I saw an estimate of an increase of four percent in addiction and death if hard drugs were legalized. That is if nobody is better educated about their risks. But the gangsters would not be funded unless Trump can make drugs so expensive that people in the inner cities cannot afford them. That is possible.  

Vote for Johnson? No way. This is a disgusting Johnson / libertarian stance: carbon taxes to fight global warming. Robert Tracinski wrote and quoted Gary Johnson who “came out in favor of--drumroll, please--a carbon tax to fight global warming.” Gary said, "I do think that climate change is occurring, that it is man-caused. One of the proposals that I think is a very libertarian proposal, and I'm just open to this, is taxing carbon emission that may have the result of being self-regulating." And Tracinski wrote: “I said it at the beginning of this exchange. Ayn Rand was right when she dismissed Libertarians as "hippies of the right." And everything they have said in response has confirmed that.” end quote

Peter

[Backlighting]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

 "But the gangsters would not be funded unless Trump can make drugs so expensive that people in the inner cities cannot afford them. That is possible"  end quote. Peter

I believe making the drugs expensive would only necessitate the hard core users to commit more burglaries to finance their addiction --J

[Peter]

Addiction is a difficult subject. I will start with some notes:

Ghs wrote: The problem is that anti-drug propaganda, such as children learn in schools, doesn't distinguish between different kinds of drugs and their effects. It is even possible to do heroin indefinitely without ever becoming addicted, if one follows the traditional junkie adage: "One day on, two days off; two days on, three days off; three days on – and you're hooked." end quote

Greg Thompson at another time replied to Ghs: All good points. I'd like to ask one last question to all: If a scene in Fountainhead went something like this, would it disturb you at all?: "Roark sat at his drawing table but exhaustion overtook him. He snorted a line of coke and it got his juices flowing. As he pondered the sitting room of the office building he was designing, he took a hit of LSD to expand his mind and creativity. Upon getting tired again, Roark took some speed. When he couldn't get to sleep, he injected some heroine to take the edge off." Kind of disgusting, right? end quote

An excerpt from Ayn Rand’s Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - March 6, 1974: When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror. The spread of drug addiction among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence. Observe these young people's dread of independence and their frantic desire to "belong," to attach themselves to some group, clique or gang. Most of them have never heard of philosophy, but they sense that they need some fundamental answers to questions they dare not ask--and they hope that the tribe will tell them how to live. They are ready to be taken over by any witch doctor, guru, or dictator. One of the most dangerous things a man can do is to surrender his moral autonomy to others: like the astronaut in my story, he does not know whether they are human, even though they walk on two feet. end quote

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Drug "Addiction" and Crime Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:33:36 -0500. Bill Dwyer wrote: "Jeff is fond of dismissing the concept of "addiction" without ever bothering to define what he means by the term. I certainly did not imply or suggest that addiction amounted to anything like absolute physical enslavement, if that is what Jeff understands by "addiction."  Indeed in my reply to Dick Rose, I stated explicitly,

 "[T]o say that a drug is "addictive" does not mean that a person has no control over its use; it simply means that the need or desire for it is much more intense than for most other goods."

Jeff's quotation (from Jeffrey Schaler) refers specifically to "physical addiction," and I think this is what JR was talking about as well. Bill's definition of "addiction," which denotes a "need or desire" that is "much more intense than for most other goods," would mean that we are literally "addicted" to members of our family, to our husbands and wives" to our favorite foods, to sex -- and to everything thing else in life on which we place a very high value, and for which our need or desire is "much more intense than for most other goods."

I personally draw a distinction between habits and addictions.  For example, it is my experience that cocaine can be habit forming for some people (like coffee, chocolate, sex, and many other things), but I have known other people who can do it once every few months, or even less frequently, with no cravings at all.  Cocaine can induce a intense feeling of well being, and we typically like to do things that make us feel good. In this sense we are "addicted" to every pleasurable activity.

We could also say that have a "dependency" on every pleasurable activity, but this is a peculiar way of speaking. We don't normally say that we have a "dependency" on having sex, eating tasty foods, or on contributing posts to Atlantis.  As Thomas Szasz has argued, drug use has been taken out of the realm of desires and habits and medicalized through the application of inappropriate metaphors.

Contrary to cocaine and most other drugs, heroin and other opium derivatives do fit my own criterion for physical addiction. This is because most (though not all) heroin users (or at least those who have been using for more than three consecutives days) experience severe physical withdrawal when they discontinue using the drug. This is not just a desire or craving; it is physical, not merely psychological. The pain can be intense beyond belief -- e.g., you might be unable to take a shower because the water hurts too much when it hits your skin – and you hurt in places that you didn't even know you had places..

This misery continues for around 3 days, until the body is able to replace the natural pain killers than it stopped manufacturing when an artificial pain-killer took over that job. The problem is that anti-drug propaganda, such as children learn in schools, doesn't distinguish between different kinds of drugs and their effects. It is even possible to do heroin indefinitely without ever becoming addicted, if one follows the traditional junkie adage: "One day on, two days off; two days on, three days off; three days on – and you're hooked."

This may constitute "anecdotal" evidence by Bill's standard, but it is my experience that people who talk about drugs without having  used them tend to be highly inaccurate when describing their effects. What is customarily described as "addiction" may simply be a habit, one not unlike many other habits in our lives.

Jeff Riggenbach quoted Bill Dwyer as follows: "One final point," Bill writes. "Many months ago, George Smith acknowledged that his heroin addiction was so strong, he found that he couldn't quit on his own, but needed help.  It is inconceivable to me that Jeff Riggenbach, as close a friend as he is to George, could be unaware of this fact. Evidently, he has chosen to ignore it in order to trumpet his claim that anyone who buys into the concept of "addiction" doesn't know what he or she is talking about!"

And Jeff replied: "Yes, Bill, I know how George regards his adventures with heroin. We have discussed it many times.  I chose to ignore it, because it is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant?  Because it is one man's interpretation of what happened to him, and nothing more.  George experienced severe discomfort when attempting to stop using heroin.  For various reasons, he decided that these symptoms of extreme discomfort were not psychological but physiological, and that the discomfort went on so long because it could end only when "the body is able to replace the natural pain killers than it stopped manufacturing when an artificial pain-killer took over that job."

 "This is an interpretation, backed up by a theory. The theory, though widely believed, has never been proved. The interpretation is debatable. Others who have gone through the experience George is talking about have interpreted it differently   The novelist and memoirist Jack Woodford devoted a chapter of his 1962 autobiography to his experience with heroin in the years just preceding the adoption of the Harrison Narcotics Act, the 1914 law which made heroin illegal in the United States. (Previously you could buy it at any drugstore, and many people did.)  Woodford used it on a daily basis for several years, then balked at the prices he would have to pay on the black market to continue his habit, and gave it up "cold turkey." Though he experienced some discomfort, his interpretation of the experience was that former "addicts" who tell the sort of story George tells have brought this on themselves psychologically, as a result of what they have "learned" about the way heroin withdrawal is *supposed* to feel.  It is unclear to me why this interpretation is any less plausible than George's.  Bill tells us that "my main point against Jeff was simply that the concept of physical addiction is indeed a valid one," and that "George's valuable comments support this point."

It should be noted that, when I began using heroin, I was on Jeff's side of this debate; I too believed that "addiction" (in the sense of suffering acute physical withdrawal) is a myth based on expectations of what one is supposed to feel. And I continued to believe this during the year when I was only a casual user, since I never had any adverse physical reactions during that time. But my opinion quickly changed the first time I used it for more than three consecutive days, after a close friend had died and I needed to put my grief aside and finish an important writing project. I thought to myself, "Well, how bad can it be? I may be a little uncomfortable the next day -- as one might be, say, during a hangover after a drinking binge -- but I won't be climbing the walls, as anti-drug propaganda would have it."

Well, I found out just how bad it can be: severe cramps, diarrhea, and the worst nausea I have ever experienced in my life, punctuated by frequent fits of vomiting. And on top of all this, recall the worst flu you have ever experienced and then multiply that feeling by a factor of ten -- and there you pretty much have my personal experience of going "cold turkey."

I don't doubt Jack Woodford's account of his benign withdrawal from heroin (though he did mention a fit of hiccups). I had also read Woodford's account, and I occasionally met other junkies who also seemed able to quit without much discomfort. But this was the exception. My girlfriend at the time experienced symptoms identical to mine, and we were relatively fortunate, since we never used needles. When you use heroin you tend to hang around other users, so I had the opportunity to observe a number of friends who used needles, and their withdrawals made mine look like a cakewalk by comparison. I am talking about people who were shaking so violently and vomiting so continuously that they couldn't even inject themselves, but had to have someone else do it for them.

With due respect to JR's skepticism about the physical aspects of "addiction," it is absurd to suppose that all this physical suffering was merely some kind of hypochondria brought about by socially-induced expectations.

Having said this, I must also disagree with the implications that Bill Dwyer drew from my personal experience. Many people stop using heroin on their own -- indeed, I did this myself on one occasion. I toughed it out for the three days, as bad as they were, only to find that I was unable to sleep for days after that. (This inability to sleep came as total surprise to me, but I later found out it is quite common.) After over five days of being exhausted but unable to sleep for even ten minutes, I decided to go back on, because, again, I was pushing a tight deadline, and I couldn't afford to lose any more time.

I agree with Jeff's assessment of the rehab scam. I went to a clinic in New Mexico that came highly recommended, one that cost $5000 up front to get myself in the door. And the only value of this clinic -- and I mean the *only* value -- was that they basically put me to sleep for three days until the worst was over. I was somewhat disoriented and weak after that (my weight had fallen from 185 to 140 pounds), but, aside from the usual problems with sleep, there was no more physical discomfort. As for the psychological "counseling" of this allegedly first-rate program, it was a joke from beginning to end -- but that is another story. I left after 20 days of a 28 day program, and never looked back.

I went to this clinic, not only because I wanted to save myself three days of hell, but also because I wanted to put myself in a different environment. I needed to get away from a situation where one phone and ten dollars would have a runner at my door in twenty minutes. Jeff is also right about the myth that "addiction" is something that supposedly haunts you for a lifetime. Not only did I never use heroin again, but I  didn't even have any *desire* to use heroin again -- not after what I had been through. And this desire evaporated without any hokey 12-step program.

I guess this puts me midway between Jeff and Bill, but overall I am closer to Jeff's position. The "addiction" of heroin, at least for most users, has to do with one's ability to withstand a good deal of physical discomfort. As a skeptic in such matters, I wasn't expecting all the pain. But that pain (along with everything else) was quite real, I can assure you, whatever the research may or may not be able to prove. Ghs

[Peter]

I won’t google the experts or research further to find out more info but if we define “hard core” as willing to buy a product no matter the cost, then I still cannot agree with Backlighting. Other types of addicts like drunks on skid row and addicted cigarette smokers do moderate their purchases to abide by the price hikes without resorting to criminal activity. They cut back. Yet, I remember an episode of MASH when a doctor got the delirium tremens and a lot of cop shows have addicts going through withdrawal and both conditions look horrible. Those shows were powerful. The previous letter documented how horrible withdrawal is. I know I will never go through that.

 

I was in an army hospital with a broken bone and they were very generous with the pain meds. At one point I said I wanted to skip a dose because I seemed to be laying there waiting for it. The lead guy who would be considered a RN / doctor’s assistant now, took me off the big pills, and lessened my dose and I was sorry I said anything because the pain was still quite bad, without the “big pills.” I remember sweating and sleeplessness. Not good.

So, getting back to the people who will commit crimes to feed their habit, AND to avoid withdrawal, I do sympathize. But to risk prison? To commit more and more crimes, digging yourself into a deeper abyss? Feel horrible for three days or for three years? I would say the three days of withdrawal and not getting high three days in a row are better than prison. And that cold hearted Darwin's Law is an apt description of reality. Only the fittest survive.  Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I caught a cute meme out there on the Interwebs about drugs and it deserves to be retyped so it can be searchable. There was no image on the original meme, so nothing is lost.

Being a meme, we have to credit it to an anonymous source until further notice.

It goes like this:

Quote

The saying, "Say no to drugs" has always made me laugh. If you're talking to drugs, it's probably too late to say no to them.

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

I won’t google the experts or research further to find out more info but if we define “hard core” as willing to buy a product no matter the cost, then I still cannot agree with Backlighting. Other types of addicts like drunks on skid row and addicted cigarette smokers do moderate their purchases to abide by the price hikes without resorting to criminal activity. They cut back.

Peter,

When I was a hardcore crack addict, I sure as hell did not cut back because of money. Ditto for my alcoholic stage. I did not get into burglary, but I sold a lot of precious things from my past to get drugs, and, I'm ashamed to say, at times some stuff belonging to other people I knew. I always owned up and promised not to do it again. As if that meant something back then...   

Nowadays drug dealers are cutting heroin with elephant tranquilizer, I kid you not, and it is killing off customers, yet the customers keep on coming for more. They can't get enough of the stuff (that is until they are six feet under).

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When I was a hardcore crack addict, I sure as hell did not cut back because of money. Ditto for my alcoholic stage. I did not get into burglary, but I sold a lot of precious things from my past to get drugs, and, I'm ashamed to say, at times some stuff belonging to other people I knew. I always owned up and promised not to do it again. As if that meant something back then..

What a wonderful man. No wonder we like each other

[Peter]

Wolf wrote about Michael: What a wonderful man. No wonder we like each other. end quote

 

What are you implying? I am interested in the clash of the concepts (and actuality,) of volition and addiction, and I am interested in everyone’s thoughts, Wolf. Ellen Moore on Atlantis back in 2000, postulated a definition of volition that expanded on Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's definitions: Volition - a primary attribute of human consciousness given the power to initiate and sustain actions and operations regulating functions of awareness. end quote And she actually copyrighted it.

 

I (perhaps presumptuously) changed her wording and Rand’s to be: Volition - the primary attribute of human consciousness, giving and causing human identity to have the power to initiate, raise, regulate, and sustain actions and operations of awareness above the perceptual level, into the levels of abstract awareness, thought and logic. And a further consequence of volition is that a human can regulate their awareness to Lower Levels, (such as during evasion, reverie / day-dreaming, the mental state associated with preparing for sleep, or to the anti-conceptual mentality of primitive man or animals.) However, the ability to lower awareness would be a corollary or direct logical implication of a previously validated conclusion, (or axiom) and not part of volition's primary identity, which is to raise awareness, and not lower it. I still like my bigger explanation.

 

And the desire to change or NOT change one’s short term behavior because of short term consequences such as withdrawal or the long term consequences such as disease, betrayal, loss of loved ones, and prison suggests we do not have volition. YET, Wolf, Michael, and everyone else, if one agrees that humans possess a soul, which is *a part of but emerges from physical processes* and that we have volition, then why does an addict commit crimes? Are we back to the concepts of good and evil, weak or strong, youthful indiscretions vs. wisdom? And there is the possibility of a genetic susceptibility to addiction just as people have peanut allergies.    

Peter    

Notes. George H. Smith To: <objectivism, Subject: OWL: Re: Mind as emergent [was: Objectivism's concept of free will] Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:44:30 -0500: I agree with emergence theory, as here summarized. This is one reason I reject physical determinism, and it also plays a role in my not-so-thinly disguised contempt for "soft determinism."  The mind, as an emergent phenomenon, needs to be studied on its own terms, and we can access it directly only through introspection. We should not assume that causation in the world of consciousness is analogous to causation as we observe it in physical phenomena. We should not assume, for example, that "motives" operate like physical particles that, upon striking other mental "things," such as choices, "cause" them to move.

 

The mind is not a world of mental billiard balls moving to and fro, engaging in endless collisions which "cause" us to choose this or that. Of course, the soft determinist will repudiate this characterization of his position as unfairly crude and inaccurate. But it doesn't take much scratching beneath the language of the soft determinist to see that this is exactly how he analyzes mental phenomena. He adopts what is essentially a mechanistic, linear view of mental causation, in which a mental event (say, a value) somehow "causes" another mental event (say, a preference), which in turn "causes" us to make a choice to put the eight ball in a given pocket.

 

One needn't defend that view that choices and other mental events are "uncaused" in order to defend volitionism. Certainly Rand didn't take this view, and neither do I. I subscribe (as did Rand) to an "agency theory" of causation, according to which a rational agent -- and not merely antecedent *events,* whether mental *or* physical -- can properly be said to be the "cause" of his own mental acts. This is essentially an Aristotelian perspective, one that has been defended not only by modern Thomists but also by other contemporary philosophers, such as Richard Taylor. It had a number of able defenders in earlier centuries as well, such as the eighteenth-century philosophers Richard Price and Thomas Reid. This position was also defended by Nathaniel Branden in "The Objectivist Newsletter" and, later, in *The Psychology of Self-Esteem.* end quote 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Wolf wrote about Michael: What a wonderful man. No wonder we like each other. end quote

 

What are you implying? I am interested in the clash of the concepts (and actuality,) of volition and addiction, and I am interested in everyone’s thoughts, Wolf.

Peter,

This is the easiest thing in the world to understand.

Go fire up a crack pipe. Then pay attention at what is urging (or shoving) your volition later after the high wears off.

You will understand more from that experience than any imagining from words could possibly give you.

 

(Actually, don't do anything with a crack pipe. No.. no... no... no... no... don't do that...  )

Think about it like this.

If you're working on an intellectual issue and suddenly get hungry, what do you start thinking about? Food, obviously. And then the mental dance starts. The more you try to ignore the hunger and concentrate on your issue, the more you think about food. It just comes to mind whether you want it to or not. You keep going until you reach the level of cognitive and physical discomfort you will tolerate at that moment. Then you use your volition to go get some food. It's easy to get food. It's much harder to ignore the hunger until it goes away for awhile.

Now multiply that hunger after it becomes a craving for food by 1,000 or more in intensity.

There you have addiction. It's basically that simple.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Wolf wrote about Michael: What a wonderful man. No wonder we like each other. end quote

 

What are you implying? I am interested in the clash of the concepts and actuality of volition and addiction... (snip five paragraphs of hooey)

Fastest way to piss me off is to quote George Fucking Smith.

Not to contradict what MSK said in reply, which was a good answer in itself, but theoretical volition is crap doctrine. No wonder the Thomists bought it, part of an anodyne mysticism that lets a priest say magic words and turn wine into blood because it pleases God to do that. MSK is wonderful because he beat crack and alcohol, an act of will if there ever was one. We aren't tested by memorizing horseshit theories, but by facing the very most difficult personal challenges in life.

[jts]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

This is the easiest thing in the world to understand.

Go fire up a crack pipe. Then pay attention at what is urging (or shoving) your volition later after the high wears off.

You will understand more from that experience than any imagining from words could possibly give you.

 

(Actually, don't do anything with a crack pipe. No.. no... no... no... no... don't do that...  )

Think about it like this.

If you're working on an intellectual issue and suddenly get hungry, what do you start thinking about? Food, obviously. And then the mental dance starts. The more you try to ignore the hunger and concentrate on your issue, the more you think about food. It just comes to mind whether you want it to or not. You keep going until you reach the level of cognitive and physical discomfort you will tolerate at that moment. Then you use your volition to go get some food. It's easy to get food. It's much harder to ignore the hunger until it goes away for awhile.

Now multiply that hunger after it becomes a craving for food by 1,000 or more in intensity.

There you have addiction. It's basically that simple.

Michael

Don't nobody touch that stuff with a ten foot pole.

 

[9thdoctor]

17 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Fastest way to piss me off is to quote George Fucking Smith.

His middle name is Hamilton. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Smith

Thought you'd retired from the site.  You weren't missed.

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Fastest way to piss me off is to quote George Fucking Smith.

Not to contradict what MSK said in reply, which was a good answer in itself, but theoretical volition is crap doctrine. No wonder the Thomists bought it, part of an anodyne mysticism that lets a priest say magic words and turn wine into blood because it pleases God to do that. MSK is wonderful because he beat crack and alcohol, an act of will if there ever was one. We aren't tested by memorizing horseshit theories, but by facing the very most difficult personal challenges in life.

Or, Bucky Fucking Dent.

--Brant

oh, he used a bat (my bag)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

MSK is wonderful because he beat crack and alcohol, an act of will if there ever was one.

Wolf,

Thank you.

Digging myself out of crack was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. By far.

I also needed help--I went to NA--because I couldn't do it alone. But what really turned it for me was learning how to do a "gratitude blast" toward the Great Out There every time the cravings came. (I came up with this myself, but I also talked it over at NA.)

Now, due to a lot of study, I realize with the gratitude blast, I was also giving myself a hit of oxytocin (the snuggle neurochemical) and probably serotonin and an endorphin or two, but I'm not going to question it.

I could write about this more, I suppose. That's what addicts want to do when they finally beat their addictions and I was no exception a few years ago. There's an Addiction section here on OL. Nowadays I sometimes feel guilty for not contributing to it much anymore.

But truth be told, I had such a horrible time with my two addictions (alcohol for 5 years followed by crack for 5 years) and caused so many people so much pain, it gives me the willies to remember it all.

So I generally leave it at this these days: I'm grateful to be alive. It's beautiful to be. Just be...

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 I'm grateful to be alive. It's beautiful to be. Just be...

Michael

A very brief comment about something else. I have done more wrong than any five men put together, still capable of it and have to watch myself. But I'm also one of the happiest men alive because I pulled through with help (like you had help). I understand "beautiful to be alive." My current writing is the finest ever. I have a family I adore and admire.

[Peter]

13 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

A very brief comment about something else. I have done more wrong than any five men put together, still capable of it and have to watch myself. But I'm also one of the happiest men alive because I pulled through with help (like you had help). I understand "beautiful to be alive." My current writing is the finest ever. I have a family I adore and admire.

Good for you. You may not appreciate my Randian definition and stress upon human volition or simply not consider it real because of your personal journey, but I think it is interesting to consider that "becoming addicted" represents a mental state that is not even partially rational.   

No harm is intended by jimmying Ghs’s name in the following, and thanks to everyone who has ever shown me kindness.

9thdoctor wrote: His middle name is Hamilton.  end quote

It’s a shame we don’t have American Indian names based on obvious traits or occurrences later in life. Hamilton was a mistake, though I am sure George forgives his parents and appreciates the name even though the middle name “Jefferson” seems more appropriate, and more like a “spirit name”. When I hear the name, George Jefferson Smith, a small smile appears and a single tear runs down my cheek. And Ghs has the same affect, as does Peppermint Patty. I am seeking treatment at The Bad Pun Dispensary.  

Peter  

From “Reference”: A Native American name is a description of the child based on events surrounding birth, personality characteristics or events in nature. In modern Native American families, a person's Native American name is commonly a second name. The Christian name is usually listed first. A Native American name can also change with adulthood. For example, one unusual female name in the Native American Hopi tribe is "Kokyangwuti," meaning "spider woman at middle age." On the male side, "Demothi" means "talks while walking." The Christian name is generally carried permanently. Naming standards differ depending on the Native American tribe. Some Native American practices for naming include passing names to children from an honored relative or elder. Many tribes have naming ceremonies in which names are exclusively chosen or used. The Navajo tribes in the western United States only use family titles, such as "Brother" or "Sister," outside of ceremonies. The Hopi tribe in Arizona names children through ceremonies 20 days after they are born. In some cases, a person can have several Native American names throughout life.

Hamiltonianism: the political principles and ideas held by or associated with Alexander Hamilton that center around a belief in a strong central government, broad interpretation of the federal constitution, encouragement of an industrial and commercial economy, and a general distrust of the political capacity or wisdom of the common man.

Jeffersonian: pertaining to or advocating the political principles and doctrines of Thomas Jefferson, especially those stressing minimum control by the central government, the inalienable rights of the individual, and the superiority of an agrarian economy and rural society.

From Yahoo Answers: It's not "hysterical" to misappropriate another's culture like that.

From Yahoo Answers: I have some name suggestions. they're not Indian though but from another tribal people and if your teammates think your idea here is a good one, these names may be much more fitting for all of you: Putz, Shlemiel, Schmendrick, Yutz, Schlmazel, Shmegegge, Shlepper, Farschtinker, Nudnik, Nebbish. If that's not enough for your whole team, I have more suggestions available. Hope you find my suggestions hysterically humorous. Shalom y'all

From Yahoo Answers: It's not the case of being over sensitive it's a lack of Cultural Awareness. In my Nation our Native name is not just a label to identify someone. In English it's called a “Spirit Name“. The Non-native connotation might be the name of your soul. In my Nation, we use our "Spirit Name" when we pray, in our ceremonies and when we are honored in some way. Although our Native names may seem humorous to others they are of great significance to us. 

[william.scherk]

On 8/28/2016 at 1:52 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Nowadays drug dealers are cutting heroin with elephant tranquilizer

The elephant tranq is carfentanil, a chemical analog of the more well-known Fentanyl, and it is used for large-mammal sedation in veterinary medicine. Carfentanil is said to be 10,000 times more powerful than morphine, and 100 times stronger than Fentanyl. Fentanyl itself has been cited in a raft of overdose deaths in recent years up here.  Often the street-version fentanyl cooked in labs is mixed with heroin+? -- with varying and unknown potencies reaching the streets.

Canada too has been overwhelmed with overdose deaths due to  'additives' like carfentanil -- my province and its major city is in the midst of this 'epidemic,  and my own city Surrey has also seen overdoses and overdose deaths skyrocket in the past couple of months.  

In BC, there was also a bout of worry over something called W-18, which had been implicated in overdoses as well -- but here the problem is that of an 'ingredients list.'  The batches of W-18 seized were not actually W-18 on further analysis, but a witches brew of opioid analogues.. 

It is also noteworthy that opioid-abuse is not simply a problem for a drug-addicted underclass. Prescription opiates are themselves addictive and so the border between criminal-class addicts and middle-class addicts tends to bleed.

On 8/28/2016 at 9:59 AM, Peter said:

I won’t google the experts or research further to find out more info but

But.  

Here's an article from Don Winslow at Esquire this month: El Chapo and the Secret History of the Heroin Crisis. A very good and informative read.  Here is another article, by Lindsey Cook at USNews: The Heroin Epidemic, in 9 Graphs. It is depressing to look at. Here are a couple of the graphics:

Age-adjusted rates for drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin, by census region: United States, 2000, 2007, and 2013
COURTESY CDC

Rates for drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin, by selected age and race and ethnicity groups: United States, 2000 and 2013
COURTESY CDC

[...]

Quote

But prescription drug abuse is the bigger epidemic.

Heroin abuse is tightly tied to prescription drug abuse. Almost half of people addicted to heroin are also addicted to painkillers. People are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin if they are addicted to prescription painkillers. Abuse of prescription painkillers is incredibly common — one in 20 Americans age 12 and older reported using painkillers for non-medical reasons in the past year. While it's true that heroin abuse has skyrocketed in the last years, prescription drug abuse is more common. The number of overdose deaths from prescription pain medication is larger than those of heroin and cocaine combined. 

Age-adjusted rates for drug-poisoning deaths, by type of drug: United States, 2000–2013
COURTESY CDC

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by william.scherk
Fixed fuxed image URLs; punctuation

[Peter]

Thanks for the links, William. I am sorry if it seemed like I was trivializing a real problem with my philosophy-ing.

Someone who knows (someone who knows . . .  someone) at a local ER mentioned that occasionally they are overwhelmed with overdose cases. I recently went through an ER in Maryland for a visit to a relative with a bump from a fall, and there were two cases of ODing and this was about 11 at night. The unnamed source said they are seriously considering not accepting OD cases because they come in batches and they cannot treat their regular emergency cases (at this summer resort hospital) and the OD’s too. It’s past being a simple matter of triage, or who is the worst off, and more of a matter of “F” the junkies, give them a shot and let them vomit in the bathroom or in the outside flowerbed and then get the hell out of here. Very rancorous, disgusted talk from the medical personnel.  One group of an OD-er and their family seemed typical middle class and the other was lower middle class and with foul mouths. All were white.

I like to keep a few old opiate pills around just in case of an emergency from past tooth aches, etc. They are truly wonder drugs and I have no intention of ever overdoing them or becoming addicted no matter how cheap or synthetic they get.

There were reports that AR was simultaneously on uppers and downers, and of course there is the story of Rand quitting smoking cold turkey. When I was around 18 I knew two people who like cocaine a lot but they survived.

Peter

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Ayn Rand and drinking Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:33:51 EDT: Ayn Rand did not drink, simply because she disliked the taste of liquor, but she had no objection to other people drinking -- assuming they did not reach the stage of drunkenness. She very much liked the concept of some drinking and much gaiety and good will at parties -- it was what she had thought would be true of parties in America. She had gathered this while still in Russia, from the American movies she saw. But was deeply disappointed to discover that parties generally held little gaiety and that people too often drank in order to become soddenly drunk and to make that an excuse for the sort of out-of-control behavior that they assumed would not be judged since they were "drunk."

She was convinced that no one HAD to be out-of-control, no matter how much they had to drink, that it was a "luxury" they allowed themselves as an escape from rationality.  To demonstrate this, she once downed a large glass of straight vodka -- sufficient to make almost anyone hopelessly drunk and, since she did not drink, sufficient presumably to make her helplessly drunk.  She felt the effects of the vodka strongly, she felt physically wobbly and mentally fuzzy -- but by an act of will she was able to remain herself and to continue speaking with the clarity and precision that was her trademark. There's a moral to the story.

In answer to my question, Jeff R wrote: <Basically what Szasz says about depression is what he says about all "mental illness" -- that there is, strictly speaking, no such thing; that what we are really talking about here is problems in living and the different ways different people deal with them. Calling "depression" a "mental illness" or a "medical condition" is to “medicalize" unjustifiably an emotional reaction to the problems in one's life and one's estimate of one's ability to deal with them. In Heresies (1976), he defines "depression" as "self-accusation and self-pity." >>

If Szasz is correct, and since you agree with him, how would you explain the fact that antidepressant medication has saved the lives of many people who were so depressed that they were considering suicide? And that in less extreme cases, the medication alone -- without therapy and without intensive self-analysis -- has lifted the depression and restored people to their normal state. One could say that such people recovered because they believed they would recover, but there is no real evidence of this. Depressed people who thought that nothing could alleviate their misery, found that the medication, to their surprise, did just that.

You quote Szasz, as follows: <<Consider the millionaire who finds himself financially ruined because of business reverses.  How shall we explain his "depression" (if we so want to label his feeling of dejection)?  By regarding it as the result of the events mentioned, and perhaps of others in his childhood?  Or as the expression of his view of himself and of his powers in the world, present and future?  To choose the former is to redefine ethical conduct as psychiatric malady.>>

But very often prolonged depression occurs in the absence of any unusual negative events in one's life, and in the absence of any discernible cause. Life was pretty much going along as usual -- until depression hit. There may very well have been a number of difficulties in one's life before the depression hit, but not ones the equivalent of which had not occurred before without causing significant depression.

A great many people commonly experience self-pity, even wallow in it – but that does not necessarily result in severe depression. And people who do rarely experience significant self-pity have experienced serious depression.

I am not suggesting that prolonged and deep depression is a psychological malady. Quite the opposite. I wonder -- because the above issues I raised seem to point to it -- if it is not almost totally the result of an aberrant brain chemistry. Depression, not necessarily severe, almost always is a problem that begins in youth and continues on and off throughout ones life if one does not take antidepressant medication.

I have read, although I don't know if it's true -- and this might contradict the idea that ONLY brain chemistry is involved -- that depression is quite common among writers. For instance, William Styron, who was almost physically, emotionally, and intellectually paralyzed by it. And many other great writers, throughout the centuries, have also experienced severe and prolonged depression. For instance, Ayn Rand. Her  disappointment in the reception to ATLAS SHRUGGED and her break with and disappointment with Nathaniel (and with me, to a lesser degree) could be taken as the causes; but she had experienced much worse in her life -- such as the constant fear of imminent arrest and death in Russia, years of semi-starvation, and the loss of Leo, the young man who was her first and passionate love – without sinking into depression. She was unhappy over these events, terribly unhappy, but that is not the same thing as depression.

Another possibility is that the chemistry of the brain -- or, at least, of some brains -- can handle a great deal of pain and unhappiness, but then it breaks down at some point when even a more minor unhappiness, that one would otherwise take in one's stride, has a cumulative effect that the physical brain cannot handle. As is obvious, I am thinking on paper as I write. But Jeff -- and George – I am very interested in your reactions.

Jeff R wrote: << I don't know how to end this post except with more exasperated vituperation at the obtuseness of some individuals, but that would be improper! So I'll stop writing now! >>

Could it not be that rather than being obtuse, some individuals have not thought or read about "addiction" as you and George have? And have not had personal experience with drugs, nor seen a variety of friends who take drugs?   You might consider explanations other than obtuseness. That might help with the <<exasperated vituperation.>> The issue of "addiction" is a complex one, with which many people are groping. Both intelligence and good will are present in most cases, but knowledge may not be; and where this is so one tends to take the "accepted wisdom" as probably valid, particularly when it is announced under the mantle of science.

I have found your posts on addiction very helpful and interesting -- and I also have found Bill Dwyer's posts on the issue interesting and thoughtful. I'm motivated to check some of the vague opinions I've held by default by doing much more reading and thinking about the subject. In my own defense -- although no defense is needed -- I will say that for some time I have had grave doubts that there is anything "addictive" about smoking or drinking. But I know much less about the effect of other drugs, and I'm glad to learn more about it and to be exposed to opinions and evidence at odds with the conventional wisdom.

I had asked Jeff: <<How would you explain the fact that antidepressant medication has saved the lives of many people who were so depressed that they were considering suicide? And that in less extreme cases, the medication alone -- without therapy and without intensive self-analysis -- has lifted the depression and restored people to their normal state.>>

Jeff responded: <<What can one say? Is this really perplexing? Someone feels bad, takes drugs, feels better. Major breakthrough! This is usually what happens when people take drugs. This is why people take them.>>

Hmmm... That makes sense to me. But there are other issues I raised that you haven't responded to. I'd appreciate it if you would.

Jeff also wrote: << You know what depresses me? The fact that, with only a handful of exceptions, which I have attempted to address today (and I think everyone can agree that I have done so in a non-insulting manner), almost every reaction I have had from people on this list to my views on "drug addiction" and related matters has been on the order of "But everyone knows you're wrong about that!"  >>

I know what made me think that drugs such as LSD and heroin were a disaster. I moved to Los Angeles in the 1970s, where I constantly saw young people staggering along the Sunset Strip, ragged, dirty, their speech almost unintelligible, and begging for money; I heard endless stories about these kids living twenty to a room, constantly drugged out, dying from overdoses; and I read horror stories about such incidents as kids on LSD leaping out of windows because they thought they could fly. I think it's understandable that the cumulative effect of all this was to make me accept the conventional wisdom, in the absence of anything I found to the contrary: that drugs kill.

I believe I know what your answer to this would be, Jeff. You would say -- and because of the evidence you've described, I'm inclined to believe you, although I want to check first hand the supposedly contrary evidence – that the kids were probably getting bad adulterated stuff, that in any event they were taking too much (just as one can take too many aspirins and bleed to death internally as a result. . . I think) -- and that kids who were flying out of windows had other problems as well as bad drugs.

All of this is doubtless true, but I think your upset over the some of the reactions to your evidence is because you don't quite realize that many people have seen and read about what I saw and read about, and find it a shock -- requiring great deal of conscientious thought -- to be told that drugs do not have to be harmful and in fact can be beneficial.

Barbara

[william.scherk]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Thanks for the links, William. I am sorry if it seemed like I was trivializing a real problem with my philosophy-ing.

I was looking for a hook for my remarks, Peter ... and it seemed a perfect opening to be pedantic.  You have obviously thought about addiction and have useful observations. I thought it might be good to point out that my country is also home to the 'epidemic' ...

The post from Barbara at Atlantis was welcome  -- I looked for a phrase from within her paragraphs (a Szasz quote) and discovered Barbara's thoughts appeared once before here -- in a thread from 2010. 

In Grade Six, I remember two highlights from our class on Drugs. We were told that two drugs were 'addictive' -- cocaine and heroin.  That was all I needed to know, and when "heroin came to town" in my musical entertainer days, I abstained.  The body count was not quite Clinton-esque, but plenty died from heroin overdoses. Oodles.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 8/31/2016 at 0:04 PM, Peter said:

You may not appreciate my Randian definition and stress upon human volition or simply not consider it real because of your personal journey, but I think it is interesting to consider that "becoming addicted" represents a mental state that is not even partially rational.

Peter,

Sometimes coincidences are great. I am studying addiction right now not because of drugs, but because of Internet apps (a long story that goes with a project I am working on and growth hacking). I came across a course that is, by far, the best thing I have seen on the nature of addiction. It is one of The Great Courses.

You can get the DVD here for a couple of hundred dollars: The Addictive Brain by Professor Thad Polk from the University of Michigan.

Or you can join The Great Courses Plus for about $20 a month and stream it online, which is what I am doing. (They even give you a month for free to see if you like it. It's even cheaper if you pay by year.) They have hundreds of courses on all kinds of things.

The Addictive Brain is 12 lectures of about 30 minutes each. Polk covers it all, including the latest in neuroscience. I think this course came out in 2015, so it is pretty up to date.

I am only on the fourth lecture so far and I can tell you I thought I knew something about the technical side of addiction. I feel like I'm just now learning it. His explanation of the effects of addiction on the prefrontal cortex, the nucleus accumbens and the VTA (ventral tegmental area) of the brain in producing craving makes total sense to me, especially since it reflects perfectly what I lived.

(Essentially, your volition is in the prefrontal cortex and this gets physically weaker with addiction as shown on fMRI scans and other measurements, the pleasure area--the nucleus accumbens--gets more and more numb over time, and the desire area--the VTA--goes apeshit and bombards the brain with dopamine, which makes you want the high real bad but feel little to no satisfaction since your brain's pleasure area is numbed senseless. You keep chasing it because your volition area is practically in a coma from not getting much blood or activity. Your brain turns into a craving machine without the rest of the parts working correctly. Oddly enough, these three areas are also the ones the brain most uses for control of learning. From one angle, addiction is a short-circuit of the brain's learning faculty--whodda thunk it?  )

Don't be boredom-scared by the big words. Polk is one of the easiest teachers to follow I have come across. He is very paced and thorough in his explanations--he starts with super simple ideas and gradually builds on them. Each stage is likewise explained in a super-simple manner. I find it ironic that he's not a great public speaker, but you can't have everything, I suppose. He's not boring and that's good enough for me.

If you have someone you care about who is an addict, I can't recommend this course highly enough. Just ask the person if they are interested in what they are really doing to their body and brain with no namby-pamby BS or control freaks trying to take their high away.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: . . . . Your brain turns into a craving machine without the rest of the parts working correctly. Oddly enough, these three areas are also the ones the brain most uses for control of learning. end quote

The wind from a hurricane can have an effect too, but you can avoid it by staying indoors. In a similar sense we may have free will but we are less likely to use it, (as when being blown around by the wind) if we are addicted to a substance. Is your volition is in a coma? Is an addicted person being *determined* when it comes to outside stimuli! Obviously he is not, if he is no longer at the whim of his cravings. That is my point of view looking at his addictive behavior. What is his point of view? (I can’t help myself . . . now . . . but I will stop at a later point? Perhaps . . . and I will never reach that point again.) Maybe.

Anyone care to elucidate if they have had that experience. I choose to never take the first step. Is it much different from that craving from a second Krispie Krème donut? What if the storm is just off the coast, but it may strengthen out to sea, and head back towards Maryland? It seems simpler and more rational to never create a storm in the part of the brain controlling pleasure and volition, and freeze the left over donuts for a later date.

Live long and prosper,

Spock   

Notes. From: "Ming shan" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The Meaning of Volition Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 18:43:34 PDT . . . .

Bill's comment: It is precisely the traditional (and Objectivist) view of free will that the determinist is calling into question.  Nor do I see how the ability to choose either of two alternatives at the same time and under the same conditions (the traditional view of free will) can "exist", if every choice is necessitated by antecedent causes.

This is precisely the point at issue between determinists and advocates of free will.  Again, I fail to see how the ability to choose either of two alternatives at the same time and under the same conditions can "exist", if every choice is necessitated.

My reply: But one of my points was that this faculty or ability can exist, even if it is never used.  We must distinguish between merely having free will and actually using it.  One can prove that it exists, but that doesn't prove that we are always using it.  Just because we have it doesn't mean we are always using it, at every point during our waking moments.  The other point was that, even if an action is freely willed, it must, absolutely must, be necessitated at the same time, unless one wants to grant some kind of arbitrary privilege to this free will, or volition.

This then, is precisely our dilemma: (1)  we can prove the existence-- again, bare existence-- of a faculty that we call "free will," but, (2)  the use-- again, use-- of this faculty must itself be necessitated, i.e., it must fit into the general "flow" and sequence of causes in Nature, unless one wants to come right out and say that he is granting, purely willy-nilly, some completely arbitrary ontological privilege to this faculty that other causes don't have. Any takers?  Like it or not, AR and Peikoff, through her doctrine of "the metaphysical vs. the man-made" are two takers. I don't know how else to explain it, other than to say that compatibilism just *is* the doctrine that an action can be 100% freely willed and 100% necessitated at one and the same time.  My adherence to this position arises from uncovering the fundamental contradiction in AR's distinction between "the metaphysical and the man-made." (For which, see my "Free Will Again.") The problem stems from a conflating of perspectives.  From our 1st-person point of view, we can introspect well enough to say that we decided among alternatives that were introspectively obvious, whereas, from the 3rd person POV, that very same individual is, to the rest of us, an entity that follows laws like any other, and therefore his behavior must appear to be necessitated, in the metaphysical sense of following strict laws.  Since one cannot reduce either perspective to the other, we are stuck with the facts as they appear to both.  But at least there is a good reason for the appearance from the 1p POV: to borrow a page from Aquinas's book, one cannot do X and perceive himself doing X (from the 3p POV) at one and the same time. One fact, two different POVs for it. end quote