Should we legalize all drugs?

xlJ_dolphin_473

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 No, it's more complex than that. Genetic information can change in just a few years, even within a human lifetime. In fact, genetic mutations can change within a human beings cells.

We call this cancer.

Cancer is essentially individual cells that have lost the ability to die after several genetic mutations have occurred. Most mutations result in the cells dying but they are rapidly replaced so it matters little. Sometimes the cells survive, reproduce and the errors are carried in the division. If the cells still survive and this process repeats enough times, the cells can become malignant and turn into cancer cells.

Evolution is both a long, slow process and a fast process. Think about it like the stock market. On any given day, the market will be all over the place and can move extraordinarily fast, but if you zoom out you will be able to see clear trends emerge.

For some things, like single-gene disorders we can be sure of safety because, well, the overwhelming majority of people do not have the mutation. Putting a halt to this type of research can only prevent scientists from developing these technologies and potentially saving lives.

We are human beings, we have taken control of nature at every step since the dawn of civilisation. We do not go gently into that good night.

True that genetic mutations can occur in a disease called cancer. I understand how cancer works. But cancer is a disease. You are talking about the potential to eliminate diseases.
That cannot happen within a human lifetime.
And that is what I believe should never be tampered with by humans.
I think that removal of single-gene disorders should not be taken control of by humans, because I consider it to be morally wrong. We can edit tomatoes to make them resistant to the cold. We can edit pigs to make them grow larger and with more meat. We can edit cheese to make enzymes, causing it to clot faster.
But editing humans?
That is just a step too far.
It would also mean that those who have not been gene edited would be inferior to those who had been gene-edited. Having biologically superior and inferior humans is never a good idea. I don't think I need explain why.

Happy_Killbot

@xlJ_dolphin_473 I can't think of a single thing wrong with removing genetic diseases, and single gene diseases are just at the top of the list. There are no drawbacks whatsoever to doing this, except that it is an emerging technology that people are afraid of for no good reason.

Pros:

• disease is eliminated in the individual undergoing the procedure
• individual has a longer happier life without disease
• family members don't have to suffer with the families disease
• children don't grow up hating their parents for giving birth to them only to suffer
• changes are effectively permanent, a single procedure has benefits for generations to come
• scientific and technological advancements may be key to humanities survival

Cons:

• New technology with potential for unknown consequences

The pros here outweigh the cons, and although there definitely is an argument to be made about safety, this should be of little concern on account of the changes could be monitored and safety measures taken.

Some people are already at a genetic disadvantage due to the circumstances of our modern society conflicting so heavily with our evolutionary roots, this is the problem we are trying to eliminate here through gene editing technologies, to try and get back on topic here. You don't need to argue "lets not cause a problem that already is" because it is already too late.

It is a genetic reality that some people are more prone to addiction than others, and when highly addictive substances that are potentially deadly are introduced to those individuals, they have a greater chance of becoming addicted and suffering both financial and health consequences. Therefore, these individuals should be shielded from these substances to the best of our abilities, and keeping the sale of these substances illegal is an obvious first step.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 I can't think of a single thing wrong with removing genetic diseases, and single gene diseases are just at the top of the list. There are no drawbacks whatsoever to doing this, except that it is an emerging technology that people are afraid of for no good reason.

Pros:

• disease is eliminated in the individual undergoing the procedure
• individual has a longer happier life without disease
• family members don't have to suffer with the families disease
• children don't grow up hating their parents for giving birth to them only to suffer
• changes are effectively permanent, a single procedure has benefits for generations to come
• scientific and technological advancements may be key to humanities survival

Cons:

• New technology with potential for unknown consequences

The pros here outweigh the cons, and although there definitely is an argument to be made about safety, this should be of little concern on account of the changes could be monitored and safety measures taken.

Some people are already at a genetic disadvantage due to the circumstances of our modern society conflicting so heavily with our evolutionary roots, this is the problem we are trying to eliminate here through gene editing technologies, to try and get back on topic here. You don't need to argue "lets not cause a problem that already is" because it is already too late.

It is a genetic reality that some people are more prone to addiction than others, and when highly addictive substances that are potentially deadly are introduced to those individuals, they have a greater chance of becoming addicted and suffering both financial and health consequences. Therefore, these individuals should be shielded from these substances to the best of our abilities, and keeping the sale of these substances illegal is an obvious first step.

There are more cons than that. For example:

• Some people become genetically superior to others
• Irreversible
• May not work in all cases

As you appear to believe that gene editing for removal of single-gene disorders is OK, I have a question for you. How do we draw the line between gene editing for removal of genetic disorders and for physical enhancement?
Besides, some of the disorders we know to be single-gene disorders could actually turn out to be controlled by many genes. So I see what you mean, but it's just not as simple as saying that you eliminate disease.

Happy_Killbot

@xlJ_dolphin_473 None of those really count, here is why:

• most people don't have these characteristics, it isn't a problem of superioritiy, it is a problem of disadvantage that we are eliminating.
• The technology to remove it guarantees the ability to cause it.
• This is a matter of technical capability. At the moment we can't do this at all, but in the relatively near future, we will.

In some cases, changing multiple genes may actually be easier than changing just 1. For example if multiple breaks in the DNA structure removed an entire gene sequence, that could be easier to just insert the missing DNA back in than changing a single letter. If a disease is caused by multiple genes interacting in some unknown way, we could still cure those diseases with a bit more difficulty, basically you will just have to run the procedure multiple times or replace conflicting sequences with ones that don't work against it, depends on the specifics and the situation.

Nature has already given some people a genetic advantage. For example some individuals are larger, stronger, and faster and receive the privilege of being professional athletes. This opportunity is something which the overwhelming majority of us will never receive.

With a little know how and access to the right equipment, you can cure lactose intolerance with DIY gene therapy.

Now on to what you think is a big question: What is the line between curing diseases and enhancement?

All I have to say is this: Where is the line between everyone getting the same high-school education and continued education?

This is a deliberate parable and analogy to genetic enhancement. Some people go to college and further develop skills and gain knowledge that they use to give themselves an advantage in life. So why should there be anything wrong with genetic enhancement, if those enhancements give you an advantage in some way?

If you are worried about things being unfair and unequal, I have some bad news for you: there is no winning. No matter what, some people will always have an advantage in certain aspects, either due to genes or environment. What is important is the specialization of each individual to their particular niche. This doesn't mean that people are less equal, just that what defines being good at any given task is going to be a function of an individual's qualifications, and that includes physical qualifications.

This is really far off topic now, we are supposed to be talking about legalizing drugs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY

piloteer

@Happy_Killbot

First off, just so we're clear here, it's not just that I don't like or disagree with you, it's mostly the fact that your argument isn't actually scientifically sound. I'd say your argument is full of holes, but that would not be a fair characterization, because it's mostly hole. Lets start at the top.

1. Is there just one "undesirable" gene that causes people to be prone to addiction?

No!! The study you provided for us plainly shows that there is a myriad of different genes that can cause this, and much of the time it's a combination of two or more genes working in conjunction. If the entire alphabet soup of genes that makes us addicted were to be removed, the consequences would not be beneficial for the human race. For this very same reason, we cannot simply remove cancer from the human genome. Cancer is so entrenched in our DNA that if we removed all the genes that can cause cancer, we would no longer even be human. I challenge you to objectively demonstrate which genes it is that cause us to be prone to addiction, and what the consequences will be if they were removed from the human genome!!!

2. Are the "undesirable" genes the leading factor that drives addiction?

No!! Again, we get to use your study to demonstrate how it is not the genes that cause people to become addicted, it's social factors. You made this argument yourself when you said "These     individuals are disadvantaged in a society that makes addictive substances (including fast food, gambling, video games, sex, and alcohol ) readily available". Beside that, there's also the fact that there are different kinds of addictions. It would seem to me to be far more logical to address the social factors that cause addiction rather than use a proven bad idea such as eugenics. 

3. Do we know what consequences will arise from eliminating the "undesirable" genes from the human genome?

Guess what I'm gonna give for an answer here. Go ahead, what do you think it'll be? AAAA-
NOOOOO!!!!!!!!    

We cannot determine what natural or social factors will come about within the next two weeks let alone the next two generations or more. We could potentially be removing genes that might save us in some distant future global disaster. Geneticists now believe there was a global disaster that took place around 75,000 years ago, and archeologists believe it was a super volcanic eruption that took place on the island of Sumatra. This caused a genetic "bottleneck" to occur. It can be demonstrated that the reason for human kinds continued existence, even in the face of such adversity, is because of a diverse genetic pool. The argument that some genes are no longer useful in modern society so they should be removed is like arguing the air conditioners in our cars should be removed because they're no longer useful now that it's winter. Since we do not know what social or natural events will occur in the future, we cannot know what genes will be needed for human survival in the future. But we can be certain that future events will happen, so we can be certain we should keep the genes, along with the air conditioners in our cars.  

4. Will removing genes from the human genome make us more closely related?

Yes!! If our collective genetic makeup becomes more similar, we will become more closely related. 

5. Won't being more closely related actually cause more genetic disorders?  

AaahhhYuppp, it will. What's the best way to make sure we will have children with genetic disorders? Having kids with your brother or sister is a surefire way of ensuring genetic disorders. The less diverse our gene pool is, the more chance there is genetic disorders will appear in the genome and we'll end up with more people like Happy_Killbot. If the human genome is diverse, there will be less of a percentage of genetic disorders in the genome. So your argument that genes should be removed will actually cause more of the "undesirable" genes to be in our gene pool.

These are some of the reasons eugenics is a psuedo-science. It's an argument made by incestuous people for incestuous purposes. So now that we are all filled in on consequences of eugenics, I think for the sake of having an intelligent discussion, you should do as I told you before and kindly , You fu€king PRATT!!!!     
          
         

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer No, you still don't understand and haven't yet contended with my argument at all and this is all straw man fallacies through and through. None of what you said is the point I am trying to make, I didn't mark it as a fallacy the last two times because I was being respectful but now that you have demonstrated you don't care about what I'm trying to say and are just filling it with your own nonsense that has nothing to do with what I am saying.

1. having one, ten or 2 million genes to determine what you are does not mean that some part of what you are is not determined by genes, that is self evident.

2. No S*** its social factors that lead to people using the drugs! That is the cornerstone of this argument. The point is that because some people are genetically prone to addiction that shielding said individuals from sources of addiction is warranted.

3. While we don't know what long term consequences serious genetic engineering will have on society, we know that many people do not have these traits and that if everyone did that things would be more equal because right now, we are not equal.

4. It's a little more complex than that, but right now we are very closely related, but mistakes in the genetic sequence are a reality, because the universe doesn't care for us and dying stars from half way accrost the galaxy will gladly tear apart you DNA because it can.

5. No, just changing a few genes will not be of a significant effect because brothers and sisters are several orders of magnitude more closely related than strangers that share just a few genes. Your argument here is a gross misunderstanding of how genetics works. If your trying to make an argument that having genetic disorders and being genetically prone to addiction is somehow good for society, you are doing a good job at that. 

I'm not nor was I ever talking about eugenics here, you brought it up, not me. You need to stop being so emotional, we are trying to have civil discourse here.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 None of those really count, here is why:

• most people don't have these characteristics, it isn't a problem of superioritiy, it is a problem of disadvantage that we are eliminating.
• The technology to remove it guarantees the ability to cause it.
• This is a matter of technical capability. At the moment we can't do this at all, but in the relatively near future, we will.

In some cases, changing multiple genes may actually be easier than changing just 1. For example if multiple breaks in the DNA structure removed an entire gene sequence, that could be easier to just insert the missing DNA back in than changing a single letter. If a disease is caused by multiple genes interacting in some unknown way, we could still cure those diseases with a bit more difficulty, basically you will just have to run the procedure multiple times or replace conflicting sequences with ones that don't work against it, depends on the specifics and the situation.

Nature has already given some people a genetic advantage. For example some individuals are larger, stronger, and faster and receive the privilege of being professional athletes. This opportunity is something which the overwhelming majority of us will never receive.

With a little know how and access to the right equipment, you can cure lactose intolerance with DIY gene therapy.

Now on to what you think is a big question: What is the line between curing diseases and enhancement?

All I have to say is this: Where is the line between everyone getting the same high-school education and continued education?

This is a deliberate parable and analogy to genetic enhancement. Some people go to college and further develop skills and gain knowledge that they use to give themselves an advantage in life. So why should there be anything wrong with genetic enhancement, if those enhancements give you an advantage in some way?

If you are worried about things being unfair and unequal, I have some bad news for you: there is no winning. No matter what, some people will always have an advantage in certain aspects, either due to genes or environment. What is important is the specialization of each individual to their particular niche. This doesn't mean that people are less equal, just that what defines being good at any given task is going to be a function of an individual's qualifications, and that includes physical qualifications.

This is really far off topic now, we are supposed to be talking about legalizing drugs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY

Yes, we should. The argument about gene-editing was only one part of your earlier case, which went like this:

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 If you want the full context, read the dialogue between myself and @MayCaesar, I will give the TL;DR here:

If someone gets pregnant who doesn't want to be, be that through fault or luck, they will be forced into an immoral situation regardless of their stance on abortion, because both pro-life and pro-choice carry moral detractors. Therefore both stances are wrong and the only appropriate action is to be proactive and never allow unwanted pregnancies to happen, and this can be accomplished through the development of technology (such as male equivalent birth control) and education.

This is analogous to to the legalization of drugs, where we should prevent people from getting hooked on drugs in the first place, either by allowing safe alternatives to exist, removing genetic addiction potential from humans, educating the public of the dangers of potential legal gateway drugs like Oxycontin, or preventing access to them altogether.

My other main objection to your case was that you suggested that we prevent access to legal (but addictive) opioid painkillers like OxyContin. I do not think preventing access to these drugs is a good idea. Because:
If someone was in severe pain without a strong painkiller like Oxycontin (because it had been banned) they might get very depressed.
Driving them to take other, illegal drugs (which they would then get addicted to).
It is clearly a better outcome to be addicted to an legal drug than to be addicted to an illegal one.
This is why preventing access to gateway drugs is a bad idea.

Happy_Killbot

@xlJ_dolphin_473 This is exactly the opposite of what we have observed in the past few decades. Arguing that not using Oxycontin will lead to herioin use therefore we should is faulty logic, when the reality is that using Oxycontin leads to heroin use when the prescription runs out and people need to meet their addiction.

Pollini, R.A.; Banta-Green, C.J.; Cuevas-Mota, J.; Metzner, M.; Teshale, E.; and Garfein, R.S. Problematic use of prescription-type opioids prior to heroin use among young heroin injectors. Subst Abuse Rehabil 2(1):173–180, 2011.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23293547

Make no mistake, the addiction potential of Oxycontin was deliberately ignored and it's use was heavily lobbied for to ensure that Purdue Pharma would maximize it's profits.

piloteer

@Happy_Killbot

Environmental factors shape how a person is, probably more so than their genetic makeup. Our DNA does not determine our entire life and thought process.That fact can be demonstrated through epigenetics. Just because some people have genes that cause them to be "prone" to addiction, it doesn't mean anybody and everybody can't potentially become addicted. Addicts were not predestined to become addicted and remain addicted because of their DNA, it was because of environmental factors. Removing "undesirable" genes may do nothing at all to cause any measurable effect in the percentage of addictions globally because anyone and everyone can potentially become addicted to something. The study you provided for us even shows us that it is environmental factors (family life, social life, peer pressure, ect) that cause an addiction, not our DNA. If you believe it is social factors that cause addiction, then all the genetic cut and paste stuff becomes even more asinine because you're arguing it is a nurture issue that causes and enhances addiction, not nature. 

Your definition of "equal" is subjective when it applies to our DNA. Equality is a social factor, not a genetic factor. Our intelligence and physical stature are more profoundly influenced by environmental factors rather than our genetic makeup. Somebody's genes may make them a smaller person than most, but it doesn't mean they cannot be stronger and faster than most. If you're arguing that social factors are the fulcrum for how smart we are, or how strong we are, then your argument is downsizing the influence of our genetic makeup. And regardless of your vision of "genetic equality", the science behind our genetic makeup can easily demonstrate that less diversity in our gene pool leaves the human race less adapt to survive a catastrophic event, or even normal environmental circumstances that occur over time. If you combine your vision of equality in genetics with the lack of care for the consequences of eugenics, it's really now just a misanthropic argument. And it IS eugenics that you're talking about. It may have a flashy new design, but it has the exact same goal.  

We are not actually closely related as a species. We are more likely to have more genetic similarities with someone who lives across the globe than we do with our own neighbors.  
It is not very complicated to realize that if our genes become more similar, then we become more closely related. This can easily be seen when we look at purebred dogs, and the consequences of those breeding practices are also very apparent. Purebred dogs have more genetic disorders than mutts. It's a fact of nature. Even if we aren't "technically" more closely related because it's a cut and paste process from gene editing, the same problems still arise. Genetic similarities cause more genetic disorders no matter how the similarities come about. If the ultimate goal is to lessen genetic disorders, or "undesirable" genes, the only viable option is to promote more genetic biodiversity, thus making the percentage of genetic disorders go down.        

I get the feeling that you think genetic disorders and genetic mutations are the same thing. If that is true, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are only a high school kid who wants to be a political antagonist just for the sake of being one. But it's equally obvious you do not actually understand the basic fundamentals of genetic function. Genetic mutations happen when genes split. We all have genetic mutations. 99.9% of genetic mutations are "neutral" mutations, as in, they cause no observable affects on the human. Some genetic disorders can come from genetic mutations, but disorders can also happen when parents have genes that cause a disorder (usually random) when their genetic makeup is combined in their child. Genetic mutations and genetic disorders are not the same thing.         

 Since you still have yet to tell us which genes it is that cause people to be prone to addiction, how can you prove that it is "only a few genes" that cause it, and how can you prove that it doesn't make us more closely related if we delete the genes from the gene pool? How many is your "only a few"? Is it 3 or 4, or possibly somewhere in the thousands of genes? How many of those genes effect other factors for us that would prove to put us at a serious disadvantage if we were to lose them? I think you might manna read up a little more into how DNA works, because there's a lot more than 3 or 4 that's effecting us, and they work in conjunction with each other, so lossing one can cause a multitude of unforeseen reactionary consequences.          

 I am trying to argue that social factors are the leading cause of addiction, and most narcotics should remain illegal, but I do not want to be placed in the same category as you. So first I must expose the faulty nature of your argument and how it's basic misanthropy, not logical science.    
 

xlJ_dolphin_473

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 None of those really count, here is why:

• most people don't have these characteristics, it isn't a problem of superioritiy, it is a problem of disadvantage that we are eliminating.
• The technology to remove it guarantees the ability to cause it.
• This is a matter of technical capability. At the moment we can't do this at all, but in the relatively near future, we will.

In some cases, changing multiple genes may actually be easier than changing just 1. For example if multiple breaks in the DNA structure removed an entire gene sequence, that could be easier to just insert the missing DNA back in than changing a single letter. If a disease is caused by multiple genes interacting in some unknown way, we could still cure those diseases with a bit more difficulty, basically you will just have to run the procedure multiple times or replace conflicting sequences with ones that don't work against it, depends on the specifics and the situation.

Nature has already given some people a genetic advantage. For example some individuals are larger, stronger, and faster and receive the privilege of being professional athletes. This opportunity is something which the overwhelming majority of us will never receive.

With a little know how and access to the right equipment, you can cure lactose intolerance with DIY gene therapy.

Now on to what you think is a big question: What is the line between curing diseases and enhancement?

All I have to say is this: Where is the line between everyone getting the same high-school education and continued education?

This is a deliberate parable and analogy to genetic enhancement. Some people go to college and further develop skills and gain knowledge that they use to give themselves an advantage in life. So why should there be anything wrong with genetic enhancement, if those enhancements give you an advantage in some way?

If you are worried about things being unfair and unequal, I have some bad news for you: there is no winning. No matter what, some people will always have an advantage in certain aspects, either due to genes or environment. What is important is the specialization of each individual to their particular niche. This doesn't mean that people are less equal, just that what defines being good at any given task is going to be a function of an individual's qualifications, and that includes physical qualifications.

This is really far off topic now, we are supposed to be talking about legalizing drugs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY

If people were enhanced genetically, that would give them an unfair advantage in life. I consider getting a further education to be a fair advantage because it means you have to work harder and thus get a better outcome. But gene editing is innate.

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer I'm not arguing that environment and social factors play no role, I'm arguing that genetics also play a vital role in addiction.

What I'm saying is analogous to this: "Some people are born paralyzed and can not walk. Therefore we must either make elevators and ramps mandatory or eliminate paralysis"

This isn't a hard concept to grasp, some people simply do not have the same physical capabilities as others and that is due in part to the individuals DNA. Some people are just born with those disadvantages because of genetic abnormalities, mutations, or environmental conditions.

"We are not actually closely related as a species. We are more likely to have more genetic similarities with someone who lives across the globe than we do with our own neighbors."

This oxymoron effectively conveys the double-think present in your analysis of my arguments and your lack of understanding of the statements I am making.

You are literally saying "We are not closely related but we are."

"I get the feeling that you think genetic disorders and genetic mutations are the same thing. If that is true, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are only a high school kid who wants to be a political antagonist just for the sake of being one. But it's equally obvious you do not actually understand the basic fundamentals of genetic function. Genetic mutations happen when genes split. We all have genetic mutations. 99.9% of genetic mutations are "neutral" mutations, as in, they cause no observable affects on the human. Some genetic disorders can come from genetic mutations, but disorders can also happen when parents have genes that cause a disorder (usually random) when their genetic makeup is combined in their child. Genetic mutations and genetic disorders are not the same thing."

I'm just going to throw the book at you.

Ionizing radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218706/
Cancers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22177/
Genetic disorders: https://www.genome.gov/For-Patients-and-Families/Genetic-Disorders

The fact that you can write all that and still not grasp my argument is a testament to your close mindedness and lack of desire to understand.

Can there be any doubt that someone who is born with a malformed organ or hereditary disease that will kill them early in life or result in life-long medical complications will be severely disadvantaged?

If this is true, then why shouldn't that also pertain to individuals who are not necessarily going to die, but are genetically more prone to be taken advantage of in some ways, that they should be protected by society so that they do not have reduced opportunity?

Addiction potential probably does have social factors, I'm not denying that. What I am arguing is that it also contains genetic influences that can not be ignored, and that these factors have macroscopic effects on society.

The primary means of genetic addiction potential would be expected to be things like the number of chemical receptors in the brain and permeability of that substance into the brain, stress resiliency, and reward resiliency. These are all things that are What you are not who you are. Science has yet to determine genetic causes of these factors for certain, but because we already know that these factors play a role in addiction it is a logical assumption to make that these would play a part in determining how likely someone is to become addicted.

John_C_87

@Happy_Killbot ;
Basic principle, you are not really looking to make all drugs legal the idea is to find one way in legal precedent to govern all chemicals. It is not a goal set with achievable steps to show a progress in any way.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 This is exactly the opposite of what we have observed in the past few decades. Arguing that not using Oxycontin will lead to herioin use therefore we should is faulty logic, when the reality is that using Oxycontin leads to heroin use when the prescription runs out and people need to meet their addiction.

Pollini, R.A.; Banta-Green, C.J.; Cuevas-Mota, J.; Metzner, M.; Teshale, E.; and Garfein, R.S. Problematic use of prescription-type opioids prior to heroin use among young heroin injectors. Subst Abuse Rehabil 2(1):173–180, 2011.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23293547

Make no mistake, the addiction potential of Oxycontin was deliberately ignored and it's use was heavily lobbied for to ensure that Purdue Pharma would maximize it's profits.

This assumes that an OxyContin addiction is the same type of addiction as a heroin addiction, and that you can satisfy a craving for oxycondone with heroin. They are two different types of addiction, and you can't get them mixed up.

Happy_Killbot

@xlJ_dolphin_473 Oxycontin and Heroin are both opiates that are derived from the same substances. They interact with the nervous system in almost the same way as other opiates, including morphine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, methadone, and buprenorphine.

There are chemical differences between the individual molecules that make up the drugs, however what is important for addiction is how it binds to nerve receptors to block pain. The addiction is similar enough that someone could go from one to the other with minimal effort.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 Oxycontin and Heroin are both opiates that are derived from the same substances. They interact with the nervous system in almost the same way as other opiates, including morphine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, methadone, and buprenorphine.

There are chemical differences between the individual molecules that make up the drugs, however what is important for addiction is how it binds to nerve receptors to block pain. The addiction is similar enough that someone could go from one to the other with minimal effort.

True. But if this is the case, why is Oxycontin legal and heroin not? Both are powerful painkillers, and both are very addictive.

Happy_Killbot

@xlJ_dolphin_473 That's a really good question, and I don't have a good answer for it.

piloteer

Happy_Killbot said:

@piloteer I'm not arguing that environment and social factors play no role, I'm arguing that genetics also play a vital role in addiction.

What I'm saying is analogous to this: "Some people are born paralyzed and can not walk. Therefore we must either make elevators and ramps mandatory or eliminate paralysis"

This isn't a hard concept to grasp, some people simply do not have the same physical capabilities as others and that is due in part to the individuals DNA. Some people are just born with those disadvantages because of genetic abnormalities, mutations, or environmental conditions.

"We are not actually closely related as a species. We are more likely to have more genetic similarities with someone who lives across the globe than we do with our own neighbors."

This oxymoron effectively conveys the double-think present in your analysis of my arguments and your lack of understanding of the statements I am making.

You are literally saying "We are not closely related but we are."

"I get the feeling that you think genetic disorders and genetic mutations are the same thing. If that is true, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are only a high school kid who wants to be a political antagonist just for the sake of being one. But it's equally obvious you do not actually understand the basic fundamentals of genetic function. Genetic mutations happen when genes split. We all have genetic mutations. 99.9% of genetic mutations are "neutral" mutations, as in, they cause no observable affects on the human. Some genetic disorders can come from genetic mutations, but disorders can also happen when parents have genes that cause a disorder (usually random) when their genetic makeup is combined in their child. Genetic mutations and genetic disorders are not the same thing."

I'm just going to throw the book at you.

Ionizing radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218706/
Cancers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22177/
Genetic disorders: https://www.genome.gov/For-Patients-and-Families/Genetic-Disorders

The fact that you can write all that and still not grasp my argument is a testament to your close mindedness and lack of desire to understand.

Can there be any doubt that someone who is born with a malformed organ or hereditary disease that will kill them early in life or result in life-long medical complications will be severely disadvantaged?

If this is true, then why shouldn't that also pertain to individuals who are not necessarily going to die, but are genetically more prone to be taken advantage of in some ways, that they should be protected by society so that they do not have reduced opportunity?

Addiction potential probably does have social factors, I'm not denying that. What I am arguing is that it also contains genetic influences that can not be ignored, and that these factors have macroscopic effects on society.

The primary means of genetic addiction potential would be expected to be things like the number of chemical receptors in the brain and permeability of that substance into the brain, stress resiliency, and reward resiliency. These are all things that are What you are not who you are. Science has yet to determine genetic causes of these factors for certain, but because we already know that these factors play a role in addiction it is a logical assumption to make that these would play a part in determining how likely someone is to become addicted.

@Happy_Killbot
 
 Wha....whoa...really?!?! I don't even know where to start when it comes to how deformed and malnourished your argument is. It's a multilayered pastry of contradiction. The level of contradiction has even reached redundancy. What point was it that you were trying to make by throwing "the book" at me? Since most genetic mutations are "neutral" mutations, they cannot be considered disorders because they have no observable effects. And since some mutations are actually beneficial for the gene pool, they most certainly cannot be considered disorders. Genetic mutations and genetic disorders are not the same thing. This is also verified by the third link that you posted. It states that genetic disorders are CAUSED by genetic mutations. If disorders are caused by mutations, they're obviously not the same thing, because an affect isn't caused by itself, it is the result of another factor. If a disorder were the same as a mutation, you'd be arguing that disorders are caused by themselves. That would be silly.      
 
https://genetics.thetech.org/about-genetics/mutations-and-disease

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_mutation

Since some people are born paralyzed, you assert that "we must make ramps and elevators mandatory, or eliminate paralysis". Ok, well we went ahead and took care of the mandatory ramps and elevators for ya, so there doesn't really seem to be a need to put the entire human genome at risk now. If we are going to make equal opportunities for people who are genetically "disadvantaged", it should be done by the whole of society, not through gene editing. We can accept people for who they are and we can make accommodations for them when needed. Arguing the genes that make them disadvantaged should be eliminated is a purposeful message of non-acceptance, which is a contradiction of the overall desire to help them. This coupled with the fact that eugenics will not actually cause less genetic disorders, but more, it makes your argument superfluous.    

The fact that we are more likely to have more in common genetically with someone who lives on the other side of the globe than our own neighbors shows us how diverse our genome actually is. Instead of a bunch of groups or tribes huddled together and carrying around similar genetic features, we are a vast array of groups who do not actually have much genetic similarities as our own neighbors. The more diverse our genetic makeup is, the less likelihood of us being genetically similar to our neighbors. This is especially true in Africa. The continent of Africa has more genetic diversity within its boundaries than the entire rest of the population does combined.

You still have yet to touch upon the point I made about how eugenics actually causes more genetic disorders because it makes the entire human race more closely related. If what you are hoping for is to cause less people to be born with genetic disorders that can adversely affect their lives, eugenics would be the worst method of dealing with it because it would actually serve to exasperate the problem. The more genetically similar we are, the more genetic disorders will be present. The only way of truly helping that situation would be to make the human genome more diverse, thus reducing the percentage of genetic disorders.

You still have yet to show us which genes cause people to be more "prone"(not inevitably) to addiction. You also haven't indicated how many of these genes there are, and what other aspects of our genetics they will effect. So it's pretty safe to reason that you cannot give us any assurance that eliminating those genes will not adversely affect us in the long run, or even in the present. There's also the fact that those genes only cause people to be "prone" to addiction, but they do not make addiction inevitable for those people, so what's the use of adversely affecting the human genome when the best plan of attack would be to address social factors that influence addiction? And since we have no idea what genes we're working with, and how many there are, we have no way of knowing it will actually reduce the number of addictions at all.           

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer You still don't understand my argument and merely contend with a fictitious one that I am not making. You seek to make only straw and hollow man arguments against points that were never said.

Your conservative opinion that we should not take control of our own genome to create humans that are genetically better suited to the environment in which they find themselves is likely to be an outdated one within a few decades time, as the signs that it will be so are already becoming a reality in certain countries, and it is only a matter of time before technology enables these and even grander things made possible by harnessing life itself.

This may of course, be a necessary part of human survival that will almost definitely include things such as altering brain chemistry and base formation as well as other traits.

Just because we have not yet pinpointed which genes cause addiction, doesn't mean that the genes don't exist. The study I have given strongly suggests that they do and because it isn't really so far fetched to assume that the chemical interaction between drug and neuron ought to have some basis in the physical chemical structure of the cells that respond to it. This is a perfectly valid and scientifically testable hypothesis.

My suggestion isn't really about limiting or reducing the number of addictions per say, its more about leveling the playing field. Have you considered that the exact same social effect could be achieved by making everyone genetically prone to addiction? In fact, it may be that such adaptations have some societal benefit that has yet to be discovered, suppose addiction prone people are also more likely to have a stable career, or have longer, happier relationships, by becoming "addicted" to the things that might make them successful and happy. In this case, a society in which we limit drugs is now a burden to the individuals who are not addiction prone because they would on average be less likely to have stable jobs and relationships, and while this effect might be so small that prediction based on an individual's genome would be impossible, it would still have macroscopic consequences that shouldn't be ignored in a society that strives to give equal opportunity to it's members.

If you really think you know what my argument is, then I challenge you to, in your own words and as clearly and concisely as possible tell me what it is.

MayCaesar

Happy_Killbot said:

@MayCaesar Although my assumption about what helped you alleviate your video game addiction was wrong, It still seems to me that your attitude toward self betterment and lifelong learning may have been a critical factor in your path out of addiction, a trait that is somewhat uncommon, although I would put it on a spectrum with a normal distribution.

There are people who, either for a lack of knowledge or a bad attitude can not take control of themselves and their situation, unless otherwise prompted or specifically instructed to do so. These are the types who have a job they hate but make no effort to get the qualifications needed for a better one, the people who don't routinely work out, or who eat fast food often. The fact that fast food chains are doing so well is strong evidence of my point. Everyone knows it is bad for you, but few cut it from their lives because it is deliberately created to invoke strong survival responses, something we are genetically predisposed to.

Belief in genetic tenancies to be more likely to be addicted have been confirmed though multiple studies, and although this doesn't automatically mean that someone who is likely to be an addict can not break the addiction, it does mean that for that individual it will be significantly harder. These individuals are disadvantaged in a society that makes addictive substances (including fast food, gambling, video games, sex, and alcohol ) readily available.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3506170/

"Evidence from family, adoption, and twin studies converges on the relevance of genetic factors in the development of addictions including SUDs and gambling.7–13 Weighted mean heritabilities for addictions computed from several studies of large cohorts of twins are shown in Fig. 1.14 Heritability is lowest for hallucinogens (0.39) and highest for cocaine (0.72)."

So now that the science is on the table, the critical portion of my argument, which I feel you have not addressed, is:

Does making dangerous and highly addictive substances legal and readily available infringe on the basic rights of individuals who have a genetic predisposition for addiction?

I think the answer, is a hard yes!

Specifically, this is because their would be a loss of opportunity for those individuals who do get addicted easily, because they would have on average a higher financial overhead to support their habit. This would lead to a situation were it would be more difficult for addiction prone individuals to become financially productive. This disadvantage would have macroscopic effects, even if the individual effects were subtle. Therefore, we should remove these things from society until we are either able to remove the disadvantage through technological development, (i.e. create drugs that are not addictive with same effects, or remove genetic predisposition to addiction)

The secret to instituting regulations that fight irresponsibility is to make the law a product of the average distribution of the decisions of the individuals that would be beholden to those regulations. This is a fancy way of saying democracy. If a majority agree that something is dangerous, and they agree that it shouldn't be allowed then they should make that thing illegal. That way there is no worrying about an irresponsible individual ruining everything for responsible people.

I don't think the slippery slope fallacy you present makes any sense outside of the fact that it is already a fallacy. These substances are already illegal, so saying that adding restriction that currently exist will somehow give the state too much power is refutable based on the fact that this is not recognized as a cause for concentration of government power.

I'm not sure where I originally posted this on abortion, but I can sum it up in this info-graphic, which thus far has been the only way for me to explain it to people who usually just get dogmatic and close minded before realizing this is a secret third option.

I do not disagree with you: different people have different personalities and are prone to self-improvement to different extents. Does it mean, however, that those who are less prone to self-improvement should be more protected from the consequences of their mistakes, or prevented from making them in the first place? I do not think so.
Not everyone is into self-improvement. Anyone can get into it, however, by diagnosing the problem and making a conscious choice to deal with it. Everyone who eats at McDonalds or Burger King every day knows it is bad for them; it is not exactly a secret nowadays. Anyone, however, can say, "I have a poor diet, and I am going to change it no matter what". Those who are unwilling to do so have only themselves to blame, however cynical it sounds.
I have beaten some addictions and never got into other addictions by my own choice. I have also helped a few people deal with their addictions (I think I already mentioned in a different thread how I got a girl from Korea to quit smoking completely by providing her with a better alternative). If someone is struggling with an addiction, there are plenty of specialists, and plenty more of people who have successfully beaten their addictions - the addict merely needs to ask for help, and the help will come.

It is always a choice. Nobody suddenly dumps a ton of alcohol into the alcoholic's fridge. The alcoholic has to drive to a store to buy his/her fix. Getting into a car, driving to the grocery store, walking into the alcohol section, picking a few bottles, putting them on the cashier's table, pulling out a credit card and paying, driving back home, putting the bottles into the fridge and then drinking them over time - every single step here is a choice. It may be a choice resulting from psychological pain, but, again, there are many ways to deal with psychological pain, and drinking is just one of them.

We should not remove anything from society, not only because of the side effects using the governmental apparatus for this have (just read about the attempt at prohibition in the US in the early XX century, and its effects, as an illustration of those), but because it is simply wrong to dictate what people can or cannot voluntarily produce, sell, buy and consume. It is none of our business what other people choose to do with their bodies, and even if you believe that you are fighting for a greater good here, you cannot fight for others without them asking you to. And if they do ask you to, then they already have a lot of tools at their disposal to fight their own fight and win it. 
As an example, I am happy to help any addict in the following way: every time they buy a product of addiction, they have to pay me $100. It seems to me that this arrangement will be beneficial to both of us, they need but to ask. That they choose not to means that, on some level, they do not really want to get rid of their addiction, and if that is so, then who am I to force them to?

The substances are illegal, yet their consumption is high. Brute force approach obviously does not work here, and even makes it worse, as now addicts sometimes cannot even seek help, as they will be immediately labelled as violators.

I wish people separated personal preferences from objective properties of the world. Heroin, however vile it is, ultimately is not in itself bad or good. It is just a way some people choose to deal with some of their psychological issues, and it is as valid a way as any other. It is extremely damaging in many ways, but objectively it is not really wrong. I am all for giving people wanting to shield themselves from heroin the power to do so, and they already have it, but perhaps the government could provide some better guarantees - however, by the same token, people who do want to consume heroin, for whatever ridiculous reason, should be free to do so, and they are free to do so whether heroin is legal or not, in the latter case they just end up in a worse spot as a result of interacting with the black market dealers and being unable to seek legal help with no repercussions.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I will add that there seems to be a fundamental ideological disagreement between us. I believe that the world is what it is, that different people get different genetics and experience different paths in life that shape them, and end up unequal in many ways - and that is fine. While you seem to want to equalise the outcome for everyone in some ways regardless of their genes and experiences. Now, your stance is not necessarily wrong, and I can see many benefits from being less controlled by things we cannot change, but on a very deep level we actually cannot change anything and are all run by our "software" and "hardware", which makes this goal simply unachievable.

I believe that our differences are what makes us individuals. Those differences are not always desirable, but they can always be used to our advantage. There are countless examples of people who seemingly were in the worst position possible, yet turned it around by turning their weaknesses into strengths. I want the world to promote such successes. It is easy to be successful when you are shielded from everything and have everything handed over to you on a silver platter. But for the success to truly be worth something and to not depend on external factors, you should have to struggle to get there and build a sustainable version of success, one that only you are required to guarantee.
I do not want to live in the society of weaklings who have never had to face the danger of getting addicted to something nasty. I want to live in the society where everyone can get addicted to something nasty, but finds ways to either avoid it, or to deal with it. This is what true diversity is: not those superficial "we all deserve happiness" things, but a product of all of us fighting our internal wars and getting victorious in different ways.

piloteer

@Happy_Killbot

I couldn't care less about the other aspects of your argument that doesn't have anything to do with eugenics. Based on the fact that you cannot even address the massive problem I pointed out about your argument, I get the feeling the rest of your argument can't be all that scintillating. The idea that "genetic health" is the wave of the future is actually an old idea. There is literally nothing different about that concept that has been learned since the early part of the twentieth century that can help us overcome the blatantly obvious deleterious effects of genetic manipulation. The only thing that's changed since then is we can do it much more easily because of technological advances in gene editing techniques. But the fact that it actually makes the problems it's intended to fix even worse still remains.

You purposely resist addressing the main point of my argument because you have no way of overcoming its merit. I concede that I have failed your challenge of describing your argument in my own words because I believe we could get a more poignant argument from a canine. I now challenge you to overcome my argument.

HAPPY_KILLBOT. I'VE DEMONSTRATED HOW GENETIC MANIPULATION ACTUALLY MAKES ALL HUMANS MORE CLOSELY RELATED, AND THAT WHEN WE ARE MORE CLOSELY RELATED, MORE GENETIC DISORDERS SHOW UP IN THE HUMAN GENOME. JUST LIKE WHEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS HAVE CHILDREN TOGETHER, GENETIC SIMILARITIES CAUSE GENETIC DISORDERS. GENETIC MANIPULATION (EUGENICS) WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THE PROBLEM YOU WANT TO FIX EVEN WORSE. IT WILL ALSO PUT THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE LESS GENES THAT WILL BE NEEDED FOR US TO ADAPT TO OUR ENVIRONMENT. I USED BOLD LETTERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH SO EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD WILL KNOW WHAT POINT I'M MAKING AND CAN TAKE NOTE OF WHETHER YOU CAN PROPERLY RESPOND TO IT. THIS IS MY CHALLENGE TO YOU. 

The floor is all yours Happy_Dillbot.   

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer What you still don't seem to understand is that my argument has nothing to do with eugenics. Eugenics is about controlled breeding, similar to what we did to produce all the various types of dogs. It was conceived at a time when we understood hereditary traits but we did not know of the underlying genetic causes of those traits.

What I'm describing here is genetic engineering, not eugenics. I agree with you on those points because eugenics is a psuedo-science that is mostly based on outward characteristics. That's why I'm not contending with your straw men because they have nothing to do with what I am saying, and you are just making a fool of yourself by suggesting that it is.

It is as if our argument was like this:

Me: "Pizza without toppings is not as good as pizza with toppings, especially mushrooms"
You: "WHAT?!?! you can't give psychedelic mushrooms to 12 year old children! That's illegal"
Me: "Um, no but pizza with mushrooms on it is still good"
You: "Psychedelics permanently alter the brain! They can cause all sorts of problems"
Me: "I don't think you get what I am saying, I just like pizza that has mushrooms on it"
You: "Giving 12 year old kids drugs is bad parenting! You should be thrown in jail"
Me: "I'm not saying we should, do you even understand what I am saying?"
You: "No, I don't want to understand what a monster like you thinks, you are wrong!"
Me: "This is why I prefer dogs to people..."

If you, by your own admission do not understand my argument, then why should we talk at all? You are clearly making no effort to think critically about what I have said and your arguments that sort-of contend with it don't do a good job at all.

For example, your argument that humans who are more closely related have a tendency to cause more genetic disorders is true in the case of siblings, but you apply it to a situation that it is meaningless in. Just because two people share common traits does not mean that they will automatically have inbred children, because they already share about 99.9% of the same DNA. That is like saying "These two people have the same eye color, if they have kids they will be inbred" It's just absurd.

Humans have effectively ruined evolution. Our technology changes at a rate that greatly outpaces evolution in all but a few fringe cases, and human evolution was effectively halted 12,000 years ago at the dawn of civilization. Genetically speaking, we are the exact same creature that lived back then as today, we have had little room for true genetic divergence which is why as you state, two people on opposite sides of the globe can be more closely related that people living in the same town. Compared to most other mammals, humans are much more closely related. Because of this, it makes sense that we should use technology to take the reigns of evolution into our own hands, and do all sorts of cool things like make desert plants and plastic eating bacteria. It also makes sense that doing more drastic things, such as improving the human condition should also be achieved. Depending on the circumstances, this may or may not include producing people that are not prone to certain drug addictions.

If you don't think that people should be allowed to live and thrive in a world where they don't have to grow up with a disease that was given to them through no fault of their own, that will cost them greatly in the long run and close all sorts of potential for both them and society then you have better have a good reason why.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I'm definitely not arguing for prohibition here, if anything that is a good argument to never legalize many drugs because once it is public then taking that right away is more dangerous. This is why some ideas like decriminalization I can agree with although not necessarily support, where owning and using the drugs is perfectly acceptable but selling is still a crime. This is a reasonable path that has been demonstrated to effectively combat drug addiction without some of the problems that come with it as obstacles to fighting that addiction once it is achieved.

The first step to fighting any addiction is to recognize and admit the addiction, but when carrying drugs caries a prison sentence and cultural stigma, this becomes a much greater challenge. While 12 step programs like AA can be completely out in the open and be very helpful for individuals, for illicit substance addictions it carries an immutable risk.

Put yourself in the shoes of a drug addict, if a group similar to AA was formed and publicly advertised, would you risk going to that group knowing that if anyone sees you that it could have negative social impact, and on top of this it could be an outright trap. If you live in a neighborhood where distrust for law officials is the norm (1/4 of the US) then this will seem like an obvious no-fly zone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not that I wan't equality of outcome, on the contrary it's that I want equality of opportunity. This is why I talk about changing things ahead of time rather than behind time, to create a society that is engineered to ensure that nobody gets an unfair head start or is unfairly held back. Now I go about that in a way which is a bit unorthodox and doesn't follow a lot of the traditional norms and standard ways of thinking about things. If everyone was truly equal and nobody received any advantage or disadvantage whatsoever, the wealth distribution would be a perfect bell curve indicating that wealth was distributed effectively at random regardless of productivity. In order for us to say that wealth was a function of productivity, then we would see a linear (or exponential) wealth distribution. Our current system could be said to be a combination of the two, and I totally agree that there is a fundamental disagreement here, although I disagree on what that disagreement is. The disagreement is how we model and analyze society, you think the way I used to think, that society is fair and what gets you ahead is what and how good you are. I on the other hand, believe that there are many factors totally outside of our control as individuals which make things effectively unfair and biased. Even little things, such as what your last name is (and how easy it is to pronounce) have a ridiculous statistical effect on what status you may end up with. A study done by a job matching site determined that for every letter you add to your name past 4, you reduce your annual salary by $3,600, and a second done by LinkedIn found that CEO's tend to have more common names. While this doesn't mean that naming your child something common makes it more likely that they will become a CEO, it does indicate that not all names are equal and hard, uncommon names may sabotage the child's chances for success. 

John_C_87

All individuals have a right to put in any substance in their bodies.

It is about what people who are under the influence do to other people. Drugs lead people who are not financially stable to commit crimes.

Everything that individuals do in private or in mutual consent with others individual should be legal.

A state of the constitutional union being created by law is not addressed in basic principle. How chemical substances are owned, acquired, and used? ( Basic principle of focus for governing)

 Feeling good is not a right it is a basic liberty, the people who are under the influenced of a drug are taking part in an ongoing crime. Right away, they do not go on to become criminal. 

The ownership of the chemical combination is owned privately and cannot be reproduced for sale openly without permission in writing, that is the first crime in a string of many taking place. People do not then go on to commit crime after the influence of drugs has begun.

Everything that individuals do in private is independent, life liberty and the pursuits of happiness. Others outside the circle of independence who become part of the independent practice in some way can petition a grievance. In several basic ways, one of those is abolishing the idea of independence at total liberty by acts of judicial proceedings.

There is consistent amount of talk which is of the political nature and not state of the constitutional union that is being asked to be addressed in its petition of grievance.

Liberty, freedom, and right. Why constitution is important.

Liberty is a right and with constitution can then be proven as freedom.

Freedom is a liberty which is without cost of charge.

A right is a loss of freedom, liberty and life when a right is applied without balance to basic principle and legal history. A nation does not have to overcommit to total written united state constitution to reap benefit to a creation of more perfect union it can create.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar

@piloteer


So it wouldn't it be blatant child abuse, for any parent to abuse meth, heroin, cocaine, Opioids, marijuana, LSD, speed, around their own kids or families?

And if any Politician goes about suggesting that all illegal drugs should be legalized, what does that notion, say about that individual Politicians campaign strategy?

Isn't that Politician, maybe placing their drug addict constituents, above the rest of the non drug addict constituents, in their individual districts?

I'd be questioning the standards of any Politician who campaigns on the strategy of legalizing all illegal drug, to maybe suit the needs of their drug addict constituents?


And if a parent were to overdose on meth, heroin, cocaine, Opioids, because these illegal drugs were hypothetically legalized, what kind of a standard of life example, is a parents overdosing death, to their own kids or families?

piloteer

@Happy_Killbot

You may not think you are talking about eugenics, but you are. It's the exact same process, with the same hopes. It just got new technological advances to do it. 

That's exactly where you are incorrect about similarities in gene structures. Genetic disorders aren't just caused by having children with a close family member. It's caused by to many similarities in our genetics. If we took two people who are not genetically related and engineered their DNA to be similar, they would have children with genetic disorders because of their similarities. We don't have to be "technically" related for the problem of genetic disorders to arise in the genome. It can still happen if it comes from gene editing which makes people who aren't related at all have similar genetic features. Your argument that we share 99.9% of genes with our close family members is unsubstantiated. We share less in common with our family members than 99.9%. Even with a percentage that's lower than 99.9%, genetic disorders will arise. The proteins in our bodies that regulate our DNA don't know whether it's a family members genes we are combining, or a totally random stranger with similar genes. All the proteins know is that they can't work with genes that are to closely related. YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

Not surprisingly, you're also incorrect about our evolution becoming stagnant since the beginning of civilization 12,000 years ago. You mentioned people with blue eyes. Those genetic traits that give people blue eyes only came into the gene pool 6,000 years ago. Humans have evolved to be tolerant to milk from other animals since the beginning of civilization. Our diet has changed since the dawn of civilization, and we have changed genetically to be able to eat certain things that we couldn't before, or certain crops that didn't even exist 12,000 years ago. The population of Tibet has evolved to be able to breath air at higher altitudes. This has only happened in the past 3,000 years. Humans are currently becoming more resistant to malaria. Although malaria still exists, it's quite possible it won't effect humans within a couple thousand years or so.  

                  https://phys.org/news/2018-11-human-evolution-possibly-faster.html

I don't need a good reason to not care about people with debilitating diseases, especially for you. But in the end, it's not that I don't care about people with debilitating diseases, it's that I know that eugenics is not a method that would actually reduce the number of diseases, but increase them. You are trying to claim that what you're talking about isn't eugenics, but it is. Eugenics is very simple. You just disallow people with "undesirable" genes to not have children, therefore not allowing those genes to be passed on. Your argument maybe takes out the aspect of disallowing people to have children, but the same result occurs with your plan. The genes don't get passed on. When they don't get passed on, the gene pool becomes less diverse. It's been demonstrated thoroughly that less diversity in the gene pool causes more genetic disorders. You may think I'm making a fool of myself, but I'd say you sound like you were dropped on your head when you were a baby, and I'd guess it happened often. It's time for you to stop. You suck at logical reasoning.          

piloteer

@TKDB

TKDB said:

@Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar

@piloteer


So it wouldn't it be blatant child abuse, for any parent to abuse meth, heroin, cocaine, Opioids, marijuana, LSD, speed, around their own kids or families?

And if any Politician goes about suggesting that all illegal drugs should be legalized, what does that notion, say about that individual Politicians campaign strategy?

Isn't that Politician, maybe placing their drug addict constituents, above the rest of the non drug addict constituents, in their individual districts?

I'd be questioning the standards of any Politician who campaigns on the strategy of legalizing all illegal drug, to maybe suit the needs of their drug addict constituents?


And if a parent were to overdose on meth, heroin, cocaine, Opioids, because these illegal drugs were hypothetically legalized, what kind of a standard of life example, is a parents overdosing death, to their own kids or families?

Why the hell are you singling me out here? You don't even know what my stance is on this. I haven't made any statements that even resemble an argument for legalizing all drugs. Could you please for once leave me out of your $hit?   

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer Looks like I need to throw the book at you again.

Humans share 99.9% of DNA and close relatives, such as siblings and cousins will be much closer.
http://book.bionumbers.org/how-genetically-similar-are-two-random-people/

The problem with inbreeding is that it can bring forth recessive traits that decreases the fitness of the species, so in this situation which is changing a few specific genes, it may not have any effect depending on if the traits are dominant or recessive. So if you have a recessive disease that can only be expressed when both parents carry the genes, then inbreeding will lead to genetic disorders, many of which are of the same types that could be eliminated altogether via genetic engineering in humans. A quick google search would have revealed this information that totally overturns the proposition you made. Science is still on my side.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1050102/

So what I mean when I say that humans have effectively ruined evolution isn't that humans are no loner evolving, it's that the tools used by humans nullify evolution to the extent of near irrelevancy. For example, our use of medicines has made it so that individuals who should not have survived in the wild are now able to grow up and have kids. Nature is an uncaring force that does what it pleases without discrimination or mercy. Humans overturn that paradigm through the use of technology, so it is only reasonable that since we have broken evolution we ought to take control of it in it's entirety. You may not realize this, but you are still arguing for the suffering of others no matter what.

piloteer said:

I don't need a good reason to not care about people with debilitating diseases, especially for you. But in the end, it's not that I don't care about people with debilitating diseases, it's that I know that eugenics is not a method that would actually reduce the number of diseases, but increase them. You are trying to claim that what you're talking about isn't eugenics, but it is. Eugenics is very simple. You just disallow people with "undesirable" genes to not have children, therefore not allowing those genes to be passed on. Your argument maybe takes out the aspect of disallowing people to have children, but the same result occurs with your plan. The genes don't get passed on. When they don't get passed on, the gene pool becomes less diverse. It's been demonstrated thoroughly that less diversity in the gene pool causes more genetic disorders. You may think I'm making a fool of myself, but I'd say you sound like you were dropped on your head when you were a baby, and I'd guess it happened often. It's time for you to stop. You suck at logical reasoning.          

Well, now that you have admitted to being the bad guy in this discussion I guess we can finally move forward. Resulting to personal attacks is a sure sign of a bad debater. Provided your whole argument is now so deluded and far from the point of this debate that it has faded into irrelevancy. You think I'm bad at arguing, but we are just talking past each other for all intents and purposes, you don't even know what my argument is, so you straw man it. Try that in an actual debate see what happens.

Eugenics is about doing to breeding people for desirable traits, genetic engineering is about changing ourselves physically, and if possible that ought to include removing susceptibility to drug addiction, or at the very least identify individuals who may be prone to addiction so that they do not have to suffer potential consequences latter in life.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

With regards to the social stigma, I believe in brutal honesty no matter the consequences. If I were a drug addict, then, however hard it would be, I would be fairly open about it. It obviously is not something I would boast, but I would not try to hide it either. I find that hiding the worst sides of ourselves from others generates a lot of shame, and feeling shame consistently is the first step towards having extremely low self-esteem and high degree of social anxiety, that is going to ruin one's life.
People should face their fears and open up about their weaknesses and insecurities, no matter how hard and sometimes dangerous it can be. And in case of drug addictions specifically, it is better to be socially stigmatised, but have a chance to be cured - than to look fine on the surface, but be extremely miserable on the inside, marching towards premature sickness and death.

For your second point, no, I do not think that people are fundamentally equal. Obviously a lot of things outside our control, or within our control, but seemingly inconsequential, play a role in how easy it is to achieve a certain outcome - however, the opportunity is the same, for the most part. If you are not what is considered conventionally good-looking, then obviously you will face some obstacles in life that most conventionally good-looking people do not, and sometimes someone can commercialise their looks to the point where virtually nothing you can do will allow you to compete with them. However, if that is the case, then you should discard the idea of competing with them and find another path.

I do not think that people's success being fully determined by their actions alone is the right societal goal to have. What I think the society should strive for instead is universal acceptance of full individual responsibility. There is a good book called "Extreme Ownership" which gives an introduction to this concept. The idea is that you take full responsibility for everything in your life, for every aspect of you, for everything that happens to you, for every instance of someone mistreating you - you own it all and recognise that it is completely up to you to make the best out of it. This is what I have believed in my entire life, and I would like everyone to believe the same.
There are things we cannot reasonably change. But we can always adapt to our circumstances. It is good for the society to strive for some degree of equality, but it is even better for it to strive for individual responsibility. Let everyone utilise their strengths to make up for their weaknesses. Instead of constantly comparing themselves to others and demand equalisation, let people compare themselves to the ideal version of themselves and move in that direction. It does not matter that person X is less good-looking than person Y; this is not a one-dimensional competition, and the person X is better off than person Y in some other domains. Those are the domains that they should focus on and use to their advantage.

The market is pretty good at rewarding people for creating value for others, but that value can be created in different ways, not always requiring a lot of effort from the person. Working hard in itself is not necessarily very valuable; working smart is, however. If someone can commercialise their looks, their voice, their something that they have naturally, then great! If someone happened to know someone at high school, and that someone then become a billionaire and gave them a few millions for free, then, again, great! Nothing wrong with being lucky in some regards and squeezing the most out of that luck. But even if you do not have anything immediately commercializeable, you still have many ways to become very successful, and sometimes you may have to work extremely hard. This is life, and there is nothing wrong with it.
By "market" I do not mean just the economical market, but also market of ideas, market of social interactions, and so on. So many people, for example, believe that they are unlovable and will never have a partner, at the same time as some of those being seemingly even less lovable than them are having dreamlike relationships. Yes, it is true that some people are more conventionally lovable than others - but is there really someone, anyone at all, who cannot in principle find an amazing partner? I seriously doubt that.

My general point is, there is nothing wrong with our society not being fully fair/meritocratic. What is wrong, however, is assuming that, just because it is not fully fair/meritocratic, some social engineering is needed to address it. I do not think so. And while some unfairnesses definitely better be diminished/eradicated, there are many unfairnesses with which we can live, and which are even desirable, as they make us all different and unique, and our society diverse and vibrant.
I mentioned here many times that I have a very strong bias towards Asian women romantically, not just for their looks, but for their culture and mannerisms - to the point where I do not see myself ever dating anyone else. One could say that this is unfair and discriminatory, and it might be - but would it be more desirable for everyone to have the same uniform preferences? I do not think so. I like Asian women, someone else likes White women, and someone else still likes everyone equally. This is what makes our society so diverse and interesting: we all have different preferences. Yes, it can sometimes result in unjustified inequalities in pay or treatment. But that is a fair price to pay for living in a fun vibrant society. I would rather have some homeless people and some billionaires, than everyone to be middle class.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I agree with a lot of what you said, but there are still some points that I don't think are quite addressed, for example while people should definitely take responsibility for themselves (in an ideal world people would) there are practical problems with doing this, all of which have to do with culture and psychology.

Have you ever had a really bad boss? The kind who is supper incompetent and/or has no true leadership or interpersonal skills? You may have noticed how these types of people will often play the "blame game" where they will attempt to drop something that is their fault on to their subordinates. This is indicative of the biggest hurdle for responsibility, the fear of consequence.

A good leader on the other hand is the type who takes responsibility for the failures of their subordinates and believes that if they did a bad job it was their fault for not setting them up for success properly. For many people this is counter intuitive and difficult to accept, which is one reason so few people succeed in life.

I can't help but think of political issues in a technocratic way, that is to say as problems that engineering can provide a solution to. For an engineer, the question of responsibility is just assumed from the onset. Drug addiction is one of these issues that typical political tools seems unable to properly combat, given it's prevalence and the fact that many of the actions taken by politicians have simply made it worse. On top of this, typical politicians will not do anything about it unless it is to help them retain power or get more. One way you might do this, is through genetic understanding of the underlying factors of addiction, as determined from a first principals perspective. It might be possible that there are other easier solutions, but it is important to know first.

As for other problems of wealth inequality, it's not that I think complete inequality is a bad thing per say, the problem is about the inseparable intermingling of wealth and politics. Someone who has a billion dollars has more political clout than someone who is homeless, even though in theory they should each get 1 vote. This means that the problems of the homeless person will get brushed under the rug while the slightest qualm of the wealthy will be addressed immediately. I don't think that inequality needs to be eliminated, but it does need to be reduced from the ridiculous extreme that it is. The problem is with the extremely rich getting cuts and bailouts while the rest of us have to pick up the tab. It is the "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor" problem.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Taking responsibility is not easy, but everybody can do it. It is not something that requires some specific skill, and, again, in the end is a choice. And it goes both ways: not only leaders should take responsibility, but their subordinates too - if for nothing else, then, at least, for choosing to follow these leaders.
Similarly, if someone is addicted to hard drugs, then they should take full responsibility for it. Maybe they were tricked into drugs, maybe they were forced to do drugs, maybe they did not know better at the time, or maybe they just could not deal with their psychological issues in a better way - regardless of why they became addicted, it is now up to them to decide how to deal with the problem. They can seek the outside help, they can work on self-improvement, or they can just utilise their willpower and make a hard decision to break the addiction once and forever - however they choose to do it, it is their choice, and it is their obligation to make it happen.

I have never believed that the way to deal with societal issues is through coercive policy-making. It is up to the people themselves to evolve as a society naturally. It does not mean that there is no place in law for something addressing those issues, but it should not be the driver of the evolution.

I strongly disagree with your take on inequality being at the ridiculous extreme; if anything, in practical terms our society is more equal than ever in the human history. It is only in the last few decades that we have achieved the point at which virtually everyone in the developed world has access to all the essentials and ability to afford them: shelter, food, fast personal transportation, education, healthcare and so on and so on. For the first time in human history, overeating is a bigger problem in the society than malnutrition. This has never before been the case for anyone but the aristocratic cream of the society.
The richest people in the world do not have access to anything principally different from what common people have. Sure, they can afford more comfortable transportation, bigger houses, more luxurious travel, higher quality healthcare - but this is mostly a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. Both Bill Gates and my neighbor next door drive cars; Bill Gates' car is just nicer, and he can fly a private jet too if he wants to.

Inequality is not a problem, and it should not be reduced in any way, from what I can see. I do agree that cronyism should be addressed, but the way to address it is to shrink the government so it no longer can participate in crony schemes, not to expand it to address the consequences of that cronyism, without addressing the cronyism itself.
Regardless, everyone in a modern developed country can become very rich by taking the right course of action. We no longer live in a caste society where one's position in life today determines their position in life 20 years later; we have very high mobility and very few obstacles.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar The problem with responsibility isn't that people can't do it, it's that they don't want to. At the end of the day, there are too many people who would rather just be told what to do or who will listen to anyone who makes them feel a certain way. Thinking is hard, and the truth isn't always nice so some people would rather not do it at all. I think this is the reason that religion is so prevalent, because people value feeling good over truth and objective knowledge.

Sometimes the concept of blame and responsibility is vague, with many different grey areas. To use a direct and relevant example, lets consider the opium epidemic. Purdue Pharma manufactured the drug, did testing to determine it was safe, got FDA approval to produce the drug, then marketed it to doctors. The doctors were pressured to over prescribe it, and it's addictive nature was blatantly ignored and whistle blowers silenced. Hundreds of thousands of people were left with addictions that they could not fulfill after their prescriptions ran out, and after turning to illegal drugs have to take responsibility for their actions to get clean.

So, where does the blame really fall? There is a sequence of missteps and irresponsibility that lead to this disaster, and the earlier it is avoided the better. It might look something like this

Purdue pharma chemists create drug -> Purdue pharma executives ignore evidence -> FDA approval -> Purdue pharma salesmen over recommend drug-> doctors ignore addiction warning signs -> prescription patients ignore/unaware of addiction potential -> addicted patients now have to fend for themselves.

Remove any one of these steps and the whole thing collapses. In many instances, it does, for example a doctor deciding not to prescribe a particular painkiller, or an individual understanding the addiction potential and consequences. That being said, we could also say that the executives who were informed by their own research teams that the drugs were dangerous ought to share the responsibility, given that their deliberate unethical decisions were vital to this chain of events. So should they share responsibility for the addiction of so many individuals?

If we say no, then this carries all sorts of absurd consequences, for example if someone lights a building on fire killing dozens of people, they could argue in court that the deaths were not his fault because the dead failed to take responsibility.

Another way of thinking about this could be to say that my view that we should take charge of people's environment to remove addictive substances from it is hyper-responsible, because we are taking responsibility for things that haven't happened yet. The way I see it, if society fails to create an environment for it's citizens to thrive as individuals, then it is a bad society, going back to that graph I made not to long ago.

When I am talking about inequality, I am specifically referring to wealth inequality which is hard to wrap your head around when you put the numbers in context. The problem is we are moving back to a caste system. (in many respects we are already there) The decisions of governments do not correlate with the will of the people that elected them to office. Unless you consider the wealthy, in which case there is strong correlation. That is a problem because it implies that only the rich get a say, and if they are mostly chosen through hereditary means via inheritance and/or living in a certain place at a certain time, then that is inherently not fair. We might as well have a feudal system with elected officials.

Another way of analyzing this is based on the rate of wealth increase, with the richest gaining wealth much, much much, faster than the lower, middle, or upper class. This creates a system where the only way to get rich is to be rich, which is roughly equivalent to serfdom, even if we supposedly get equal legal treatment, which isn't true because money buys good lawyers. Our society is looking more and more like an oligarchy of business men by the day.

Luck should play a trivial role in the wealth of individuals, and productivity should be everything, but the reality is that treachery pays.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Yes, but people who do not want to take responsibility for something are still responsible for this choice. I fail to see why someone owes something to a person who refuses to take responsibility for their actions and makes poor life choices. We should help such people, but we should not make them into victims, and to some extent they should be ostracised, as the actions they take make them a burden for others.

Well, there is a difference between personal and legal responsibility. Personal responsibility I personally take to the extreme: I am responsible for everything that happens to me, whether it is outside my control or not. I cannot choose what happens to me, but I can choose how to respond to it. In the example with the building being set on fire you gave, yes, I am responsible for not getting outside the building in time and burning to death. However, I was not the one who put myself in this position, and the arsonist still should be legally prosecuted.
With drugs, it is different. As long as the drug producer does not commit a fraud and provides the information about the product to the best of their ability, they are not harming anyone by putting the drugs on the market. People then can make a free choice to purchase or not purchase those drugs. Legal responsibility should be fully on them, from my perspective, and not on the drug producers. Now, if drug producers commit fraud and lie about their products, hiding the fact that they are addictive - then that is a different story.
With opioids, again, nobody is forced to follow the prescription. People have dealt with physical pain without opioids for millennia, and nothing prevents anyone from taking a harder path and refusing to use them. But those people who do use them gain enough information nowadays about the dangers coming with them, and if they still end up addicted and switching to harder drugs, then how can pharma employees be blamed? They have done everything they could on their end; they cannot control the lives of their clients.

The goal to create an environment in which all citizens thrive as individuals seems utopian to me, and not even in a positive sense. I believe that the environment should leave a room for error and for damaging consequences of such, otherwise people are not incentivised to better themselves. A society in which everyone thrives no matter what is going to end up in a disaster, where people become more and more detached from reality and immersed in a beautiful dream. I do not see how that can be sustainable.
Somewhat paradoxically, we need the homeless, we need drug addicts, we need murderers, etc. Now, it does not mean we should not try to prevent them from existing in ways that do not infringe on other people's rights - but a society without them can experience issues that we do not even think about. For example, Japan essentially has solved the problem of crime; crime rates there are nearly zero. Yet it was achieved by means of "sterilisation" of the society, by cultivating a very strict and somewhat oppressive social culture. One of the results of this is one of the highest suicide rates in the world, the "hikkomori" phenomenon and one of the poorest sex environments in the world: people are well off materially and security-wise, but they are not well off psychologically.
We need struggles and examples of horrible consequences of bad life choices, so we can learn to make good ones.

I disagree with your interpretation of inequality. Statistically, approximately 3 out of 4 millionaires are self-made. The statistics you are citing are aggregate, showing a "snapshot" of the economical distribution - and such snapshots never take economical mobility into account. If we do take it into account, then the opposite interpretation begs to be suggested. Here is a very good talk on problems of inequality that outlines the evidence suggesting it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCjWG8RqH4w

You see on the featured plots that the poor and middle class are shrinking, and the upper class is growing. Statistically, as a result of it, the top 99.99 percentile's wealth should be growing even faster, as the tail of the wealth distribution gets bigger as the average wealth possession grows. It only makes sense that the richest people get richer at a higher rate than the poorer people, and the very poorest few percent of people might not be getting richer at all, because they are not a part of the mainstream economy and do not benefit from its growth.
It is true that cronyism and corruption exist at the top, but the vast majority of people are not really affected by these. That the top 1% of Amazon shareholders get some unfair benefits from the government does not hurt me in any significant way. The problem is much less impactful than some would want to believe.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Alright, so you agree that legal responsibility should be taken for crimes and fraud, which Purdue pharma was guilty of through semi-legal means.

I guess the point I am trying to make said in less words is that it is impossible for everyone to be an island of responsibility onto themselves, we are social creatures and whatever decisions we make have the potential to effect other. Just being responsible for oneself isn't good enough, you have to be responsible for everyone around you, and in return you can expect them to return the favor.

I don't really understand what you mean when you say that crime drug addiction and poverty are necessary for the system to remain stable. The battle cry of the free market is that it reduces poverty and increases overall well being, so if these things are necessary for the stability of that system shouldn't that undermine the claim that the free market helps to reduce these problems? Isn't the environment someone is raised in a critical factor in shaping them as individuals?

I grew up in a low-income rural area that was (is) still not caught up with the rest of society in terms of quality of life and financial stability. When I talk to old classmates who stayed in the region, it is as if I am talking to empty shells, when I suggest new ideas it is as if I came back from the future to talk to people stuck in the 1930's. I bring this up because I see myself as a rare exception to the rule rather than the rule that most people will be stuck with the thoughts and beliefs imposed on them from a young age, and will carry those beliefs to adulthood.

While it is true that most millionaires and about half of billionaires are self made, what is ignored is that self-made is a somewhat relative and non-descriptive term. The ability for them to become wealthy was in part enabled by the society in which they live allowing that to happen. If you live under an authoritarian regime, your odds of becoming wealthy are slim to none. In developed countries, there is infrastructure and stability that makes it much easier for someone to become wealthy and live a happy, healthy life. This is what I am talking about when I say that we should foster this type of environment, it is something that has been done before and should continue into the future.

The problem with wealth inequality that I am reiterating here isn't that some people are richer than others and that makes them jealous, it is that wealth buys political clout (as seen in first graph) and that basically means they get their way politically while the rest of us can get the short end of the stick. I couldn't care less if the difference between the richest and the poorest person was only $1,000 or a trillion, so long as it was obtained fairly and everyone gets the same legal treatment, but as soon as political decisions are made that favor the wealthy over the poor, it stops being ok and starts being a problem. So for example if a theoretical company "Soma medical" starts making a drug that turns people docile and happy, they could use that drug as a means of riot control in unstable areas. This is fundamentally unfair, even if the company was created within the confines of the law and the mayor of the city approved the use of the drug through completely legal means.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Part of being responsible for everyone around you is respecting their free choice. If someone wants to buy a pack of cigarettes from you, then, even though you know that it is bad for you, you can do so via means of a mutually beneficial exchange. Being responsible for one's actions does not mean controlling everyone else. Let people make their mistakes and learn from them.

Being able to make mistakes is very important, and an essential ingredient of the free market. Free market only works when there is competition in place. When bad business models fail and good ones prevail. When people with poor spending habits are at the bottom, and people with good spending habits are at the top. When people who refuse to improve their skills are stuck with low-paying jobs, and people who improve their skills consistently have the sky as their economical limit.
The free market is not supposed to equalise anything; this is not what it is about. What it is supposed to do is give people freedom of action, including freedom to make mistakes and pay the price for them. If everyone is deprived from the ability to make mistakes, then no one has an incentive to do anything. If no matter what you do, you will be fine, then why would you do anything? Why would you learn anything? You would just do the bare minimum you need to do to maintain your basic quality of life, and the economy as a whole would fall apart pretty quickly, as nothing of substance is being produced.

I was born in Soviet Union, shortly before its collapse... Most people there are cavemen, plain and simple. Yet they still have plenty of freedom now, enough freedom to achieve anything they want, at the very least, by immigrating somewhere else. Do they do it? Only a small minority does. Most people seem quite comfortable with maintaining their current lifestyle, and who are we to tell them otherwise? It is their choice.

I do not think anything that is done by mutual consent is somehow fundamentally unfair. The interpretation of fairness you are promoting seems to rest on the assumption that in the ideal world two individuals putting in the same amount of effort should gain the same amount of benefits. I do not agree with this at all; I believe that, on the contrary, differences between us as individuals are going to create a lot of differences in how we should approach our lives. A lady beautiful enough could make a killing just appearing on some fashion events every now and then, something most other people cannot do, because their looks are not up to the standard. Is this unfair? I do not think so. The lady knows her strengths and utilises them, and those strengths can very well be cumulatively much bigger than the strengths of most other people. To me, this simply means that other people should pursue different venues.
Someone may be very persuasive and befriend a few CEOs who will give them a lot of company shares for free. That is also something they managed to do by using their strengths in the most efficient manner. This is what we all should strive for. We are not supposed to be a grey mass of clones that have the exact same starting points in life, but a vibrant and diverse collection of individuals which are going to act differently and achieve different results.
I agree that political cronyism is harmful, but political cronyism is not something free market endorses in the first place. Free market works best with a small "watchman" government, or with no government whatsoever, and when the government is so big that it starts selling benefits to individual enterpreneurs, then we are no longer talking about a free market as such.

There are many ways in which I have been disadvantaged, compared to most Americans. I was born in a terrible country, my family was poor, I had serious social issues for the majority of my life, I made some bad choices early on in my life that impaired me in various ways for the rest of my life... Yet I know what I am good at, and I am a very happy guy wishing for almost nothing more than what I have now.
On the other hand, there are people in the US who have inherited a huge fortune in their early teens and blew the entire fortune in a couple of years, plus got into insane debts that are going to be hurting them for decades to come.
People exaggerate the influence of one's circumstances on their outcome. One can get out of the most damning circumstances and achieve everything they ever wanted, and one also can blow up the best opportunities one could not even hope to get and end up in an even darker place than the one they started with. Individual choices determine one's outcome easily by 99%.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I think that 99% of one's outcome being individual choice is way to high. I would say that the things that effect a person's position in life have a division more like this:

What a person is: 15-35% The physical structure that is the human being. This category includes things like genetic makeup and physical characteristics such as strength, weight and health.

physical Environment: 10-70% Things not inherent to a person's being that exist as psychological factors not from other people. This category includes things like home, physical resources, water availability, local diseases, and location. Range is inversely proportional to resource availability.

Social environment:  35-50% The circumstances under which a person is raised until adulthood as psychological factors. The decisions made by others that effect the individual. This includes local government, family life, economic mobility, education, and social mobility.

Individual choices: 10-40% What decisions a person makes and what outcomes a person makes as a result of the choices. This includes things like who you marry, what job you have, where you live, and what you buy. Many of these choices are contingent on the above.

Everything is a range because what defines a person's life is going to be different for each person.

So for some made up case studies, numbers in order from top to bottom:

A sex slave from Cambodia who was kidnapped before becoming a teenager: 30, 15, 45, 10
This individual get very little say in what happens to her. She is taken for what she is, because of where she is, from an environment that enables it, into a world where if she gets any choices she is lucky. Psychologically, people with stories like this will not act on what little choice they do have because of a condition known as "learned helplessness".

A business man from Toronto who started a successful multi-million dollar business: 15, 10, 37, 38
This person has a high degree of autonomy and control in their life, as a result of being raised in a liberal democracy that values individual freedom and has systemically removed as many barriers as possible from everyone's life. This person had two loving parents, did well in school, and then dropped out of college to start a business that made him wealthy.

A business man from Toronto who started multiple failed businesses before taking an average job: 15, 10, 40, 35
This person still has a high degree of autonomy and control in their life, but because social pressures where insufficient for him to maintain his business (or it was mismanaged) he has less control when compared to the man above. In the end, he ends up working for someone rather than having others work for him.

An average Joe who gets addicted to heroin after abusing painkillers: 15, 10, 46, 29
This individual was raised in a poor family, didn't do so well in school, and lacking the funds for college instead got a 2-year technical degree and went to work. After an accident left him injured and with high medical bills, he got hooked on the painkillers and when his prescription ran out turned to illicit substances. He gets fired, his wife leaves him, and eventually he overdoses.

Social pressures are usually much more prevalent in a person's life than many of us would like to accept. At the end of the day, what decisions other people make are going to effect you more than you effect you, unless you take action right away to change your circumstance. When everyone is born, they have almost 0 effect on themselves or their environment, and are completely reliant on their parents for survival. As we age, we may get more control but will always be fighting influence from others. In liberal democracies, we have deliberately made social and individual choices as balanced as possible, in many ways utilizing social pressures to maximize individual choices.

So in conclusion, by taking away the option for people to harm themselves via drugs we may corral people to make the choices that are most in their favor, without necessarily forcing them into those choices. The best way to get someone to do something, is to make them think it was their idea. Likewise, the best way to make someone successful is to make them think that they achieved it on their own. I don't believe in self-made millionaires, I believe that individuals can live in a society that allows millionaires to exist.

John_C_87

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

Happy_Killbot said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 Oxycontin and Heroin are both opiates that are derived from the same substances. They interact with the nervous system in almost the same way as other opiates, including morphine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, methadone, and buprenorphine.

There are chemical differences between the individual molecules that make up the drugs, however what is important for addiction is how it binds to nerve receptors to block pain. The addiction is similar enough that someone could go from one to the other with minimal effort.

True. But if this is the case, why is Oxycontin legal and heroin not? Both are powerful painkillers, and both are very addictive.

In Constitutional understanding the reasons for legal challenges setting heroin illegal in human private use are based on the united state held by both narcotics not having been centered around relief of pain. They are a controlled substance by a complex way they are created. The narcotic is held under a basic principle of possession, having, owning, not pollution or its effects on people or person.

Two key points in the 80’s Drug World War, escalating private lethal force and the volume of medical narcotic reaching the street.

johnjames

I do not take drugs and I am never going to take drugs but if drugs like weed make people happy then who cares,I've never seen anybody high had a fight I always see two drunk people fight so if they wanna do that let them @qwerrty