RE: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 11:37:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Obviously the degree of addiction increases with use, but I've known

> several people who insisted they were hooked by their first lines, and I

> have reason to think they're not lying.

I think that's it's physiologically impossible, assuming we make the

distinction Gene had made. If you consider feeling " hooked " being addicted,

then by

definition that would be the case. But I think you can want something very,

very badly, and not actually be addicted to it.

>

> >Since Wanita was making the statement about mainstream drug culture

> >and how " escapism " is more common, etc,

>

> I had a slightly different take on what Wanita was saying -- namely that

> people are more prone to seek consciousness alteration and more prone to

> addiction in their modern malnourished state. Perhaps I misinterpreted

> her, though.

I do think that's what she was saying. But I think she was referring to the

phenomenon of mainstream drug use-- pot, etc.

> >And the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people who use

> >illegal drugs are not heroin or crack addicts, nor users, I'm sure.

>

> Inasmuch as you're assuming that the vast majority of illegal drug users

> are casual pot smokers, obviously.

You don't think that pot usage dwarfs the use of most other drugs? The

majority of people in my age group smoke pot, I'm pretty sure. I doubt the

majority of people in any age group do many other drugs.

> >25% is a bad gamble. But most people who use illegal drugs, to my

> knowledge,

> >are using things like pot, ecstasy, and LSD.

>

> Heroin and coke are very, very popular.

As popular as pot? I'm sure they're more popular than LSD in some areas,

among some ethnic and age groups. But I don't think they even approach pot

usage.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>These subtleties are important, actually, when one is trying to argue that

>something is good or bad.

Actually, I think you're doing exactly what you complained about someone

else doing in the " is it physically possible for people to exercise for two

hours a day " sub-debate. I think most reasonable people understand what I

mean if I say " drugs cause behavior X " .

>Many people can use mind altering substances without engaging in dangerous

>activity, so it does appear possible.

So at what statistical threshold would you acknowledge a causal or

contributory relationship? And what if the magnitude of the drug's effect

depends on some physiological factor in the user, such as serotonin level

or sensitivity or something?

>If there were a hypothetical substance

>which would override a person's knowledge about what is dangerous behavior -

>then, to that degree, if the person did not somehow make arrangements to

>constrain his/her behavior, then that would constitute irresponsible use of

>the drug.

OK, but what if the drug has that impact 50% of the time, or on 50% of

people, so that use is a gamble?

>probably

>alcohol does more than any other, at least in my experience.

I don't want to debate alcohol. I'm talking generally, not about any

specific drug.

>hmmm - more so than other drugs? It's my impression that people are held

>accountable for their behavior done under the influence of any drug taken

>voluntarily, mitigated to some degree but not too much by the degree to

>which the drug 'made them crazy'.

Are we talking legal responsibility, or a reasonable-person standard, or

what? I got the impression that you feel that any action a person takes

while under the influence is 100% his or her responsibility, regardless of

the degree of impairment of judgement, reflexes, etc. Not so?

What it comes down to, IMO, is that people do lots of crazy sh** under the

influence that they wouldn't have otherwise done. Drugs (and again, I'm

not getting into specifics here, but obviously some drugs much more than

others) obviously are a contributory cause. In a colloquial sense, they

bear contributory responsibility. Obviously the user is responsible for

causing the impairment to the degree (a) that he's in control of his

actions and ( that he's aware of the potential consequences. Some drugs

seriously impair control, and the misinformation from both sides of the

drug argument make reliable assessments of potential consequences rather

difficult.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Playing a video game quite obviously *does* alter the reflexes of a driver,

>and other mental functions. Someone playing a video game firstly isn't even

>looking at the road,

You're ignoring some fundamental differences: first, the video game doesn't

exert anything remotely like the same kind of pull on a driver that an

addictive drug can; second, the video game doesn't impair the driver's

ability to drive for a period of time after he's finished playing the game;

and third, playing the video game doesn't make the driver more likely to

drive when he shouldn't whereas drugs can. We're not just talking about

using while driving, but about all the influences using can have on

driving, so your comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

>By the same time, someone smoking pot on their porch will not get into a car

>accident. Why? Because they aren't in a car!

Forget about pot. I don't want to debate specific drugs.

>Thus, clearly there is nothing about either video games or pot that causes

>car accidents, but if one irresponsibly uses either by combining them with

>the

>task of driving, that irresponsibility could lead to a car accident.

Let's hypothesize a drug which seriously erodes judgement and reflexes,

such that driving after using would be dangerous. Let's say decides

he's going to use some, so he decides he won't get in his car until

tomorrow. He uses some, and then he realizes he needs something at the

store. His judgement now impaired, he gets in the car and heads for the

store. Do you really not see the contributory role the drug is playing in

potentially causing an accident?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I doubt it's physiologically possible to get addicted after the first line.

>I think Gene was correct in making the distinction he made.

Obviously the degree of addiction increases with use, but I've known

several people who insisted they were hooked by their first lines, and I

have reason to think they're not lying.

>Since Wanita was making the statement about mainstream drug culture

>and how " escapism " is more common, etc,

I had a slightly different take on what Wanita was saying -- namely that

people are more prone to seek consciousness alteration and more prone to

addiction in their modern malnourished state. Perhaps I misinterpreted

her, though.

>And the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people who use

>illegal drugs are not heroin or crack addicts, nor users, I'm sure.

Inasmuch as you're assuming that the vast majority of illegal drug users

are casual pot smokers, obviously.

>25% is a bad gamble. But most people who use illegal drugs, to my knowledge,

>are using things like pot, ecstasy, and LSD.

Heroin and coke are very, very popular.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>But, by not lying, this simply means that they believed what they were

>saying. This doesn't mean that what they were saying was correct

If they were sweating and experiencing physical pain, I think it's safe to

say they were addicted.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:28:46 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> These subtleties are important, actually, when one is trying to argue that

>> something is good or bad.

>

> Actually, I think you're doing exactly what you complained about someone

> else doing in the " is it physically possible for people to exercise for two

> hours a day " sub-debate. I think most reasonable people understand what I

> mean if I say " drugs cause behavior X " .

Good point. This is another usage of the word 'cause'. However, I think that

subtle shifts in the meanings (usages) of words to prove a point (in this

case, that drugs are bad), is what one has to be on guard against. In most

cases, using another, stronger, sense of the word 'cause' we would say that

x causes y, and that therefore, since y is obviously a bad outcome, x is

bad. But then we apply this reasoning to a different usage of the word

'cause' and suddenly we are saying that x is bad, when this really isn't so.

>

>> Many people can use mind altering substances without engaging in dangerous

>> activity, so it does appear possible.

>

> So at what statistical threshold would you acknowledge a causal or

> contributory relationship?

I don't think that this hinges on me being able to produce a number. If I do

drug x, and I use it responsibly, in what sense is it bad? Bad, in this

case, is a value that we ascribe to the substance, and we can choose to do

this using a different algorithm than simply, if substance x contributes to

some people's being irresponsible, then it is bad. We can, for instance, say

that if person x uses this substance, especially if he/she has knowledge of

its effects, and commits an irresponsible act, then he/she is responsible

for this action. Using your argument, we could say that cars are bad,

because cars cause many deaths.

> And what if the magnitude of the drug's effect

> depends on some physiological factor in the user, such as serotonin level

> or sensitivity or something?

>

I don't understand the point.

>> If there were a hypothetical substance

>> which would override a person's knowledge about what is dangerous behavior -

>> then, to that degree, if the person did not somehow make arrangements to

>> constrain his/her behavior, then that would constitute irresponsible use of

>> the drug.

>

> OK, but what if the drug has that impact 50% of the time, or on 50% of

> people, so that use is a gamble?

>

Then that person should make sure that his/her behavior is constrained

responsibly.

>> probably

>> alcohol does more than any other, at least in my experience.

>

> I don't want to debate alcohol. I'm talking generally, not about any

> specific drug.

>

ok.

>> hmmm - more so than other drugs? It's my impression that people are held

>> accountable for their behavior done under the influence of any drug taken

>> voluntarily, mitigated to some degree but not too much by the degree to

>> which the drug 'made them crazy'.

>

> Are we talking legal responsibility, or a reasonable-person standard, or

> what? I got the impression that you feel that any action a person takes

> while under the influence is 100% his or her responsibility, regardless of

> the degree of impairment of judgement, reflexes, etc. Not so?

>

Excellent argument. I'll have to think about how to put this. Only people

can have responsibility. Animals can't, substances can't. So, given that, if

someone has an accident while under the influence of substance x, that

wouldn't have occurred with the diminished capacity caused by substance x,

then ONLY this person is responsible (unless we complicate the situation by

adding people who knew that he was driving drunk, etc, etc..But that doesn't

mean that this person is responsible for the same action as if he were

sober. For instance, if a person commits a murder under the influence of

PCP, I don't believe that that person is AS responsible as one who committed

that act while sober. I don't believe in some kind of 'conservation' of

responsibility. Responsibility is a judgement that we make, and just because

we might just a person to be responsible, but responsible of a lesser act

than if he were sober, doesn't mean that someone or something else must be

assigned the differential in responsibility.

> What it comes down to, IMO, is that people do lots of crazy sh** under the

> influence that they wouldn't have otherwise done. Drugs (and again, I'm

> not getting into specifics here, but obviously some drugs much more than

> others) obviously are a contributory cause. In a colloquial sense, they

> bear contributory responsibility.

I wouldn't disagree with you here, unless you take this 'colloquial sense'

and shift senses to argue that these substances are therefore bad.

> Obviously the user is responsible for

> causing the impairment to the degree (a) that he's in control of his

> actions and ( that he's aware of the potential consequences. Some drugs

> seriously impair control, and the misinformation from both sides of the

> drug argument make reliable assessments of potential consequences rather

> difficult.

If I want to take a substance because I like its effect, and this effect

causes diminished capacity to some degree, I believe that it is my right. It

is not my right to impinge on the rights of others, so it is my

responsibility to make sure that I don't while under the influence of this

substance. If I commit an action that hurts someone else while under the

influence then I am responsible for it, however, we can, with logical

consistency, assign less responsibility to this action than if the person

were sober and committed it. I don't see a contradiction here. (but then

again, I've been drinking Chimay, and my brain physiology has been radically

changed.)

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:37:23 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> Chris-

>

>> I doubt it's physiologically possible to get addicted after the first line.

>> I think Gene was correct in making the distinction he made.

>

> Obviously the degree of addiction increases with use, but I've known

> several people who insisted they were hooked by their first lines, and I

> have reason to think they're not lying.

>

But, by not lying, this simply means that they believed what they were

saying. This doesn't mean that what they were saying was correct

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:19:34 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> But, by not lying, this simply means that they believed what they were

>> saying. This doesn't mean that what they were saying was correct

>

> If they were sweating and experiencing physical pain, I think it's safe to

> say they were addicted.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

No, I don't think it's 'safe to say'. if they were sweating and experiencing

physical pain after ONE line, then something else was going on, but not

addiction. That may be the story that they tell, and believe, but I just

don't think that they were seriously addicted after one line.

>

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> You don't think that pot usage dwarfs the use of most other drugs? The

> majority of people in my age group smoke pot, I'm pretty sure.

We seem to agree mostly about drug use. But I think that this statement is

not correct. There must be statistics on it. I'd bet the the vast majority

of people in your age group do not smoke pot, and that this has never been

true in this country of any age group at any time.

[Guest guest]

,

Exactly, my meaning! Expanding further not only are there more nutritional

challenges now than back in the late 60's and 70's (when imo use was more to

be different and freer feeling counterculture) there are more environmental

and social hierarchial challenges that all add up to higher stress so if a

way out is found that feels good (more likely with more challenged hormones)

its much more likely to be kept.

> I had a slightly different take on what Wanita was saying -- namely that

> people are more prone to seek consciousness alteration and more prone to

> addiction in their modern malnourished state. Perhaps I misinterpreted

> her, though.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 1:46:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> What exactly is your threshold for addiction, then?

It's my (perhaps wrong) understanding that addiction is a state in which the

normal physiology of the body is altered as a form of compensation for the

presence of a drug, which occurs over time with repeated usage (usually

chronic).

Most drugs produce a " crash " after the high, and it seems to me like coke

might just have a much worse crash than other drugs.

For example, say this person ran out of coke after the first line. How long

would the " withdrawals " last, and how does that compare to someone we know is

addictive. Would the person continue to experience withdrawals the next day?

That seems like a good way to distinguish between withdrawal and crash.

For example, in heroin addiction, because heroin mimics endorphins, the body

decreases its own production of endorphins, which leads to painful withdrawal

symptoms when heroin is absent and the endorphins are still " compensating. "

That's the sort of dynamic I understand to underlie addiction. Is it possible

for that to happen after one dosage?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 12:32:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >Isn't it hard to keep them lit?

> >

> >Sharon

>

> LOL .. Yeah man, but it's worth it ... ;--)

If you roll it up tight enough it's not too bad. However, I've always had a

problem with the feathers falling out the end.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> However, I did burn incense in the '70s, and still do, occasionally.

> I also smoke fish and occasionally turkeys. ;--)

>

> -- Heidi

Isn't it hard to keep them lit?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

<snip>

>

> My understanding is that pot smoking is worse for the lungs than

tobacco,

> and though this says nothing about overall numbers, I do know there

have

> been people who died due to LSD trips -- walking off buildings,

into

> traffic, etc.

>

>

>

> -

Sadly, any US research that has been done has been half hearted, the

results stacked to support the desired outcome. In this case, they

don't want people smoking pot, and they KNOW that people don't know

why pot was outlawed to begin with, so it's easy to say that pot

smoking is worse for the lungs than tobacco. When people become used

to believing what the government and the media says, they stop feeling

responsible for finding out the truth themselves.

There was a study done in Canada in 2001 that said Pot Doesn't Cause

Lung Cancer. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1045.a03.html

As for me, it's a very good pain reliever for aches and pains, and

helps me to sleep at night.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> How about the person driving under the influence of one of your

" harmless "

> drugs who runs a stop sign, or does something else stupid and wipes a

> family, or even a portion of one?

>

> Would you still say that those drugs never killed anyone?

>

> You have your ideas and I have mine so I'm not going to debate this

but I

> would like to know your answers.

>

> Judith Alta

Wait, weren't you the one who started the " risks " thread? Hmmmmm.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

>> However, I did burn incense in the '70s, and still do, occasionally.

>> I also smoke fish and occasionally turkeys. ;--)

>>

>> -- Heidi

>

>Isn't it hard to keep them lit?

>

>Sharon

LOL .. Yeah man, but it's worth it ... ;--)

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>but I just

>don't think that they were seriously addicted after one line.

Oh, now the standard is " serious " addiction?

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Your original quote said that you knew people who were 'brutally hooked'

>after one line. If anything, I would interpret 'brutally' as even more of an

>exaggeration here than 'seriously'.

Hmm, good point, I think I did say that. I misspoke there; I guess I was

thinking more of those people's overall problem than of their initial

experience. However, I stand by my statement that they were hooked with

the first line, and I believe them when they say they experienced physical

withdrawal symptoms which led them to do more lines.

-

[Guest guest]

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:48:32 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> but I just

>> don't think that they were seriously addicted after one line.

>

> Oh, now the standard is " serious " addiction?

>

>

>

>

> -

Your original quote said that you knew people who were 'brutally hooked'

after one line. If anything, I would interpret 'brutally' as even more of an

exaggeration here than 'seriously'. but you are right - if I am making the

claim that one line will not result in addiction, then I don't make my point

by talking about 'serious' addiction. H

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>If you consider feeling " hooked " being addicted, then by

>definition that would be the case. But I think you can want something very,

>very badly, and not actually be addicted to it.

What exactly is your threshold for addiction, then?

The first definition on dictionary.com seems to fit my understanding:

>>Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance

Encarta's definition is even more friendly to my understanding:

>>Addiction, habitual repetition of excessive behavior that a person is

>>unable or unwilling to stop, despite its harmful consequences.

(I suppose since the definition stipulates repetition you could argue that

the first use of a drug is by definition insufficient to fulfill the terms

of the word, but I don't think that's a meaningful objection.)

Encarta's relevant definition of withdrawal also fits:

>>period of fighting addiction: a period during which somebody addicted to

>>a drug or other addictive substance stops taking it, causing the person

>>to experience painful or uncomfortable symptoms

Since I've never tried any illegal drugs, I've never experienced addiction

to them, but while alcohol and caffeine seem to have absolutely zero

addictive power over me (I suppose as far as they go, I'm equivalent to

those (few?) people who can take coke or leave it even after extensive

consumption) refined carbs are quite the opposite, and I expect the

aphorism " once an alcoholic always an alcoholic " will always apply to me

with the appropriate substitution of poisons.

From what I can tell, refined carbs have an addictive power proportionate

to certain kinds of damage to one's physiology. In my case, I got hooked

quite young, but certainly the addiction worsened over time with further

consumption. Since the body has various physiological mechanisms for

digesting and metabolizing carbs, it would probably be difficult or maybe

even impossible to devise a situation in which carbs could cause instant

addiction, but certainly the addiction-free consumption window varies

widely from person to person. From what I can tell about drugs, they

appear to have addictive powers proportionate to both genetic adaptations

(as to alcohol) and to damage to the relevant physiological systems, and I

have no trouble believing that some drugs can be instantly addictive to

some people under some conditions.

-

[Guest guest]

I think that it might be possible, given a particular person's biochemistry

and psychological makeup, to experience physical symptoms when coming down

from their first cocaine high, even if it was just 1 line. However, I still

think that we would want to distinguish these symptoms, however similar they

might have been in this case, from true addiction. I think that addiction,

conceptually, refers to symptoms produced by the body (or mind) when changes

have been produced do to acclimation to the substance. I don't think that,

by definition, this takes place after one line. Whatever the cause of the

symptoms, I wouldn't call it addiction. I can see your point, though, which

is that the symptoms prompted them to do more, and ultimately led to 'true'

addiction.

I was not addicted to cocaine. I did it once a week for awhile a long time

ago. However, I did find it very difficult to stop using it once I had

stopped, because I felt so terrible when I came down. I eventually realized

that this was more to do with adulterates in it than the coke itself, since

when I did stuff that was pure, I didn't get these symptoms. But even so, I

would differentiate this psychological and physical longing for more from

addiction. I would agree, however, that this is one of the things that makes

coke so dangerous, whether or not it is technically called 'addiction'.

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:22:54 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

Gene-

>Your original quote said that you knew people who were 'brutally hooked'

>after one line. If anything, I would interpret 'brutally' as even more of an

>exaggeration here than 'seriously'.

Hmm, good point, I think I did say that. I misspoke there; I guess I was

thinking more of those people's overall problem than of their initial

experience. However, I stand by my statement that they were hooked with

the first line, and I believe them when they say they experienced physical

withdrawal symptoms which led them to do more lines.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:46:03 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: OFFTOPIC Jack LaLanne/Sex/Drugs

>

>

> Chris-

>

>> If you consider feeling " hooked " being addicted, then by

>> definition that would be the case. But I think you can want something very,

>> very badly, and not actually be addicted to it.

>

> What exactly is your threshold for addiction, then?

>

> The first definition on dictionary.com seems to fit my understanding:

>

>>> Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming

>>> substance

>

> Encarta's definition is even more friendly to my understanding:

>

>>> Addiction, habitual repetition of excessive behavior that a person is

>>> unable or unwilling to stop, despite its harmful consequences.

>

Ok - and I would argue that after one does one line of coke, one does not

have a 'habit'.

> (I suppose since the definition stipulates repetition you could argue that

> the first use of a drug is by definition insufficient to fulfill the terms

> of the word, but I don't think that's a meaningful objection.)

>

Sure it is. You can feel really bad when coming down off of coke. Because of

this, doing more will make you feel better. this is not addiction. If you

don't do any more, it will go away rather quickly, although it might not

seem like it at the time. The causation is not from cessation of a habit, it

is due to the fact that the drug has simply wreaked havoc with your

chemistry. And, as I posted slightly earlier, I do think that many of these

sorts of symptoms are actually do to adulterates in the coke.

> Encarta's relevant definition of withdrawal also fits:

>

>>> period of fighting addiction: a period during which somebody addicted to

>>> a drug or other addictive substance stops taking it, causing the person

>>> to experience painful or uncomfortable symptoms

>

Well, given that it presumes addiction, if the person isn't addicted, then

the symptoms you describe aren't those of withdrawal.