The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2011, 07:09 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Anything unnatural is bad. Chemicals that change your mind are bad. If not for a short period, then they will be dangerous after a long period of use. We always had a drug that is pretty safe and it is ... guess what ... Smile Cannabis. Smile At least it is 100% natural, no chemicals and God knows what inside. I don't see how people can use good judgment if they are happy all the time. Your mother dies in front of you and you are still happy and ok?! That is not normal, nor can you have a normal, natural reaction on the things around you if your perception is changed in that way. Human emotions are the biggest part of our perception of the world around us, so if you change that, you change your whole perception and how you look at things and how you react at things. Simplified, you are not the same person anymore. Now if you don't like who and what you are and you don't care if you are a changed person, then they could be good for you, but I don't tend to take anything pharmaceutically made, if I don't have to.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2011, 08:33 AM
 
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Filox, unnatural doesn't mean bad. Everything is made up of chemicals, and if they're identical it doesn't matter whether they came from a plant or a laboratory. The problem is that we're adapted to many naturally occurring chemicals and new ones need to be tested before we know they're safe for humans. Something that we aren't adapted to isn't going to be harmful if it doesn't react badly with something else in our bodies.

It's no different than when early humans experimented with various plants and their chemicals to find that some are poisonous, some are good, and some weren't that harmful so we ended up adapting to them. Except right now we can much more effectively predict what effect synthetic substances will have on us before consuming them.

Yes, they may not always be safe, but in many cases they're not just safe but very beneficial to us.
Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2011, 10:39 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(27-07-2011 07:09 AM)Filox Wrote:  We always had a drug that is pretty safe and it is ... guess what ... Smile Cannabis. Smile At least it is 100% natural, no chemicals and God knows what inside.

No chemicals uh? So I guess cannabis is not made of atoms joined into molecules by chemical bonds? Dodgy
Every substance in nature is a chemical. Water is a chemical. Oooooh, must be bad for you...

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2011, 05:43 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(27-07-2011 07:09 AM)Filox Wrote:  Anything unnatural is bad. Chemicals that change your mind are bad. If not for a short period, then they will be dangerous after a long period of use. We always had a drug that is pretty safe and it is ... guess what ... Smile Cannabis. Smile At least it is 100% natural, no chemicals and God knows what inside. I don't see how people can use good judgment if they are happy all the time. Your mother dies in front of you and you are still happy and ok?! That is not normal, nor can you have a normal, natural reaction on the things around you if your perception is changed in that way. Human emotions are the biggest part of our perception of the world around us, so if you change that, you change your whole perception and how you look at things and how you react at things. Simplified, you are not the same person anymore. Now if you don't like who and what you are and you don't care if you are a changed person, then they could be good for you, but I don't tend to take anything pharmaceutically made, if I don't have to.

What would your stance on other peoples use be? Clearly you wouldn't take such a drug yourself but would you try and prevent others taking it through attempting to have it banned or individually pressuring those around you, or would you accept their decision?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2011, 12:28 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Why would I have any problems with others taking some pills? I don't care that much about people I don't know and their habits. To my friends, I would suggest what I would learn about those pills. Suggest and advise, not ban or pressure. I do believe in freedom of choice and human intelligence. And as for the chemicals and nature/plants, when I said chemicals, I meant industrial chemicals, not natural. But you all already knew that, you are just trying to make look stupid. Tongue It's a no-go, only I can make myself stupid and I'm doing a pretty good job from time to time, so if you don't mind...

Smile

Now to be a bit more serious, I was joking when I mentioned weed, it has nothing to do with this theme, so I will not get into it (again)... I can not agree that everything industrial made can be as good as natural chemicals. It can never be the same. We can now all argue how stupid this statement is, because you can clone everything and it can be exactly the same as original, but it never is. Take all this GMO vegetables, they are all super, cool, industrial made, but they are all s*** to eat, it has no taste at all. You can clone everything, but that something special always escapes, so it is never the same thing. I don't know how many of you have something planted in your garden, so go to any shop, buy that same vegetable, it is a clone of your domestic vegetable, and it is terrible to compare. And natural growing plants are way to complex to take all those chemicals and put them in a pill and say that that pill has the same benefits. You can take vitamins for example. Vitamins in fruit is much more beneficial and healthy that vitamins in pills. Vitamins in pills are a substitute for when you don't have or don't have enough of raw fruits and vegetables to eat, so they come in handy. But you are much better eating an apple a day, than taking "apple pill" every day. Much of these chemicals are "alive" and they loose their effect couple of minutes, or hours after you have taken the fruit of the tree, or cut the fruit into peaces, so how do you suppose they keep it "alive" inside some pills? They make modifications and they use other chemicals to keep these chemicals stable. So, again, it is not the same.

Now back to the original pills for happiness, I would think that it is far better for person to find it's own happiness, than to use some drug that will "tell" you that you are happy. The brain structure develops with your personality in strange and unique ways, when you take some pills, you just short-circuit some parts of your brain and only a long period of time can show us how good or bad it can be. So you will need a test group that takes those pills for, let's say, 30-40 years and then you will know how your body/brain reacts to it all together. And nobody does that kind of research, they all make it last for couple of years if you are lucky. It is never enough for long term usage.

Man I like to write these long posts. Sorry people, it that kind of day.

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2011, 02:35 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(28-07-2011 12:28 PM)Filox Wrote:  Why would I have any problems with others taking some pills? I don't care that much about people I don't know and their habits. To my friends, I would suggest what I would learn about those pills. Suggest and advise, not ban or pressure. I do believe in freedom of choice and human intelligence. And as for the chemicals and nature/plants, when I said chemicals, I meant industrial chemicals, not natural. But you all already knew that, you are just trying to make look stupid. Tongue It's a no-go, only I can make myself stupid and I'm doing a pretty good job from time to time, so if you don't mind...

Smile

Now to be a bit more serious, I was joking when I mentioned weed, it has nothing to do with this theme, so I will not get into it (again)... I can not agree that everything industrial made can be as good as natural chemicals. It can never be the same. We can now all argue how stupid this statement is, because you can clone everything and it can be exactly the same as original, but it never is. Take all this GMO vegetables, they are all super, cool, industrial made, but they are all s*** to eat, it has no taste at all. You can clone everything, but that something special always escapes, so it is never the same thing. I don't know how many of you have something planted in your garden, so go to any shop, buy that same vegetable, it is a clone of your domestic vegetable, and it is terrible to compare. And natural growing plants are way to complex to take all those chemicals and put them in a pill and say that that pill has the same benefits. You can take vitamins for example. Vitamins in fruit is much more beneficial and healthy that vitamins in pills. Vitamins in pills are a substitute for when you don't have or don't have enough of raw fruits and vegetables to eat, so they come in handy. But you are much better eating an apple a day, than taking "apple pill" every day. Much of these chemicals are "alive" and they loose their effect couple of minutes, or hours after you have taken the fruit of the tree, or cut the fruit into peaces, so how do you suppose they keep it "alive" inside some pills? They make modifications and they use other chemicals to keep these chemicals stable. So, again, it is not the same.

Now back to the original pills for happiness, I would think that it is far better for person to find it's own happiness, than to use some drug that will "tell" you that you are happy. The brain structure develops with your personality in strange and unique ways, when you take some pills, you just short-circuit some parts of your brain and only a long period of time can show us how good or bad it can be. So you will need a test group that takes those pills for, let's say, 30-40 years and then you will know how your body/brain reacts to it all together. And nobody does that kind of research, they all make it last for couple of years if you are lucky. It is never enough for long term usage.

Man I like to write these long posts. Sorry people, it that kind of day.

Smile

Every chemical is natural. You are just drawing some completely arbitrary line in the sand and decide everything on this side is good, everything on this side is bad. Nonsense. There are chemicals you find in common plants and animals that will kill you and other chemicals we make in labs that won't harm you one bit. If you want to condemn a substance, you actually need to show it's harmful, just throwing out there words like "natural/unnatural" is not enough.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2011, 05:08 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(28-07-2011 12:28 PM)Filox Wrote:  Why would I have any problems with others taking some pills? I don't care that much about people I don't know and their habits. To my friends, I would suggest what I would learn about those pills. Suggest and advise, not ban or pressure. I do believe in freedom of choice and human intelligence. And as for the chemicals and nature/plants, when I said chemicals, I meant industrial chemicals, not natural. But you all already knew that, you are just trying to make look stupid. Tongue It's a no-go, only I can make myself stupid and I'm doing a pretty good job from time to time, so if you don't mind...

Smile

Now to be a bit more serious, I was joking when I mentioned weed, it has nothing to do with this theme, so I will not get into it (again)... I can not agree that everything industrial made can be as good as natural chemicals. It can never be the same. We can now all argue how stupid this statement is, because you can clone everything and it can be exactly the same as original, but it never is. Take all this GMO vegetables, they are all super, cool, industrial made, but they are all s*** to eat, it has no taste at all. You can clone everything, but that something special always escapes, so it is never the same thing. I don't know how many of you have something planted in your garden, so go to any shop, buy that same vegetable, it is a clone of your domestic vegetable, and it is terrible to compare. And natural growing plants are way to complex to take all those chemicals and put them in a pill and say that that pill has the same benefits. You can take vitamins for example. Vitamins in fruit is much more beneficial and healthy that vitamins in pills. Vitamins in pills are a substitute for when you don't have or don't have enough of raw fruits and vegetables to eat, so they come in handy. But you are much better eating an apple a day, than taking "apple pill" every day. Much of these chemicals are "alive" and they loose their effect couple of minutes, or hours after you have taken the fruit of the tree, or cut the fruit into peaces, so how do you suppose they keep it "alive" inside some pills? They make modifications and they use other chemicals to keep these chemicals stable. So, again, it is not the same.

Now back to the original pills for happiness, I would think that it is far better for person to find it's own happiness, than to use some drug that will "tell" you that you are happy. The brain structure develops with your personality in strange and unique ways, when you take some pills, you just short-circuit some parts of your brain and only a long period of time can show us how good or bad it can be. So you will need a test group that takes those pills for, let's say, 30-40 years and then you will know how your body/brain reacts to it all together. And nobody does that kind of research, they all make it last for couple of years if you are lucky. It is never enough for long term usage.

Man I like to write these long posts. Sorry people, it that kind of day.

Smile

I happy for you that you can be intelligent enough to say 'I don't agree with these drugs but accept the decision of those who do' Smile.

In a way though I'm a little disappointed because, as you can probably tell, I have a major problem who say 'I disagree therefore you should too' and I was kinda hoping to find someone with that attitude so I can try to better understand it.

Anyone who has this attitude please let me know, I want to hear your perspective on the topic.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2011, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2011 08:56 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
On this topic 'Happy Drug' I only see problems with the drug itself. The harm it could do to those that take it.

Allot of what we do is driven by emotions. An equivalent 'moral quandary' would be "should people be able to have an operation that gets a wire going to the pleasure center of their brains."
Reminds me of the Larry Niven book:
Larry Niven - Ringworld Engineers Wrote:Current addiction is the youngest of mankind's sins. At some time in their histories, most of the cultures of human space have seen the habit as a major scourge. It takes users from the labor market and leaves them to die of self-neglect.
Times change. Generations later, these same cultures usually see current addiction as a mixed blessing. Older sins -- alcoholism and drug addiction and compulsive gambling -- cannot compete. People who can be hooked by drugs are happier with the wire. They take longer to die, and they tend not to have children.

It costs almost nothing. An ecstasy peddler can raise the price of the operation, but for what? The user isn't a wirehead until the wire has been embedded in the pleasure center of his brain. Then the peddler has no hold over him, for the user gets his kicks from house current...

Louis seemed to sag in upon himself. He reached across his smooth scalp to the base of the long black braid, and pulled the droud from its socket beneath the hair. He held it in his hand, considering; then, as always, he dropped it into a drawer and locked it.

This happy drug would not be good for children since they wouldn't be able to learn things like empathy. There would be no guilt from lying. They wouldn't understand emotional consequences of their actions in others. You would be able to do horrible things without the emotional consequences. Eg: Take out an insurance policy on your wife and hire someone to kill her.

There would be no emotion reward pathway for doing the right thing. To me the only issue would be - does this drug harm people. I wouldn't allow children to have it but once they are adults they can decide to jump off a cliff and I can't stop that.

This drug probably wouldn't be as bad for adults since at that time you have experience with emotions, and your moral framework is solid and will not be easily swayed by your emotional state.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2011, 12:18 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Well DeepThought, you really are deep thought... Smile And sy2502, why do I have a feeling you really don't like me? Every post I put about something, here you come with all sots or arguments against me. Don't take my post 100% literally, don't be like Creationists with the Bible, try looking at a bigger picture and understand what I was trying to say. I don't always have the right words to express myself in the right tone, so try to take that in account while reading my posts. Thank you for your understanding.

Peace!

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2011, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2011 01:57 PM by sy2502.)
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(29-07-2011 12:18 PM)Filox Wrote:  Well DeepThought, you really are deep thought... Smile And sy2502, why do I have a feeling you really don't like me? Every post I put about something, here you come with all sots or arguments against me. Don't take my post 100% literally, don't be like Creationists with the Bible, try looking at a bigger picture and understand what I was trying to say. I don't always have the right words to express myself in the right tone, so try to take that in account while reading my posts. Thank you for your understanding.

Peace!

I don't know you, therefore I can't possibly like or dislike you. All I have to go by are your posts. In your posts you are making some simplistic assertions of what is or isn't natural and therefore good for you. Since everything in nature is "natural" (by definition) and since we are part of nature, and everything we do is also part of nature, you can probably see why I don't get your arbitrary definition of things. If you want to make an argument against specific compounds or substances, I am happy to hear it, but just saying "it's not natural therefore it's bad for you" is not the kind of argument that satisfies me. You used the example of genetically modified foods. Again, unless you actually show that GM foods have something in them that is bad, and you specify exactly what is bad and how, how can one take the argument seriously? It ends up sounding more like irrational fear of what we don't understand, which is an emotional and therefore fallacious argument. To clarify, the corn we eat is not natural either, it was selected over centuries by the American Indians, starting from something that looks more like a weed than anything. But people decide arbitrarily that corn selected through centuries is ok, but corn selected in the lab isn't. How does that make sense?

I think you are getting me wrong. You take my objections as personal attacks. Not the case. I love a good discussion, but emphasis on "good". There's nothing more I love to hear than a good, well thought out argument. I'd like to hear something like that from you too, and I am trying to steer you in that direction, that's all.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: