What is a drug, in practical terms, for the purpose of its scheduling in a federal agency, such as the FDA? — Arcane Sandwich

Something that if allowed unfettered access to the average person or child may reasonably result in serious injury, death, or worse, annoyance to those of higher moral value or at minimum, greater intellect.

Kidding. Mostly. Glad to be here.

How can one ensure this is not simply another meta-philosophy topic that is best and greater encumbered by a simple "The ethics of self control vs. indulgence" type of discussion.

Why go the speed limit when I can go 10 miles over?

Why be a good person when others who clearly are not seem to not only walk around with impunity impeded, but on many an occasion succeed and live better lives?

Why do anything one doesn't have to? And to top that, why must one do anything?

So many greater, and again, mostly if not all encompassing avenues and schools of thought come to mind. So, make your case. What differentiates doing/using/willingly becoming under the influence of "drugs" (which you've yet to define, I might add) from any of the aforementioned (and ongoing) philosophical debates?

What is a drug, in practical terms, for the purpose of its scheduling in a federal agency, such as the FDA? — Arcane Sandwich


Something that if allowed unfettered access to the average person or child may reasonably result in serious injury, death, or worse, annoyance to those of higher moral value or at minimum, greater intellect.

Kidding. Mostly. Glad to be here. — Outlander

Cool. Glad to have you here. Thanks.

How can one ensure this is not simply another meta-philosophy topic that is best and greater encumbered by a simple "The ethics of self control vs. indulgence" type of discussion. — Outlander

Hmmm, well for the topic of this Thread specifically, I think that the paradigmatic example for this discussion is the Straight Edge ideology and lifestyle.

Why go the speed limit when I can go 10 miles over? — Outlander

You already know the answer to that. Everyone does.

Why be a good person when others who clearly are not seem to not only walk around with impunity impeded, but on many an occasion succeed and live better lives? — Outlander

That's a legitimate question. Is that what you want to discuss? I propose that we discuss it from the perspective of the Straight Edge ideology and lifestyle.

Why do anything one doesn't have to? — Outlander

What do you mean?

And to top that, why must one do anything? — Outlander

What do you mean?

So many greater, and again, mostly if not all encompassing avenues and schools of thought come to mind. So, make your case. — Outlander

I'll do it with a music video. Watch the following video, and then tell me if the point being made by Earth Crisis is Ethical:

What differentiates doing/using/willingly becoming under the influence of "drugs" (which you've yet to define, I might add) from any of the aforementioned (and ongoing) philosophical debates? — Outlander

See the music video that I embedded above this quote of yours. Then we'll talk.

In the building trades, the limits are closely linked to how dangerous one becomes to others. Substance abuse that just kills you is different from what kills others.

In the building trades, the limits are closely linked to how dangerous one becomes to others — Paine

The FDA is not dangerous, in any way, shape, or form. Is it possible to say the same thing about the DEA?

Substance abuse that just kills you is different from what kills others. — Paine

How so?

I appreciate what OSHA has done for work site safety but the most effective guarantee of not getting hurt is paying attention to the states of awareness around you. That includes one's own state of awareness.

So, if you have a habit that makes you okay at work but nonetheless shortens your life, that is on you.

So, if you have a habit that makes you okay at work but nonetheless shortens your life, that is on you. — Paine

So tobacco cigarettes are just the consumer's responsibility then? They shouldn't be illegal?

Tobacco gets ruled out of the job site because of danger to others. I am libertarian enough to let people decide how they die left to their own devices.

I would rather make most guns illegal.

I would rather make most guns illegal. — Paine

If you wanna make a topic about that, I'd be willing to chime in. You're allowed to derail this thread to talk about that if you want to, but I would then steer it back to the topic of not doing drugs.

Tobacco gets ruled out of the job site because of danger to others. I am libertarian enough to let people decide how they die left to their own devices. — Paine

If it's a danger to others, then it's also a danger to yourself. I'm actually glad that tobacco has been banned from public buildings. Should it be made an illegal substance? I'm not sure. From the point of view of physical health and nothing else, I would say it should be illegal.

Is that paternalistic? If it is, then why does the FDA schedule any other drug? Is tobacco less harmful than marijuana, for example?

You asked me questions and I spoke my mind. I am okay with people doing drugs if I, or people I care about, are not harmed. I do not know of a more direct way to answer your questions.

I understand what you're saying, it's sounds reasonable. I'm just saying that tobacco should be illegal, for example.

I mean, does it have any beneficial effect on the smoker? It's all negative across the board, there's not a single good thing about it. It's a harmful substance. You might say "but people should be free to buy it anyways."

Should they? Why?

I am okay with people doing drugs if I, or people I care about, are not harmed — Paine

... or anyone other than the users themselves (either directly or indirectly as a downstream consequence).

What is a drug, in practical terms ...? — Arcane Sandwich

Afaik, any addictive, mood/mind-altering substance e.g. (processed) sugar, nicotine, caffeine, liquor, (prescription) painkillers, etc.

... the Ethics of not doing drugs ...

In disutilitarian¹ terms (of flourishing (i.e. moral good) as absence of suffering), one ought to "use drugs" in a way that prevents or reduces harm to another (and thereby oneself (re: virtue)); therefore, one ought not "use drugs" in any way that does not prevent or reduce harm to another (and thereby oneself (re: vice)).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics [1]

Should they? Why? — Arcane Sandwich

Life is hard. Why deprive us of our little pleasures, like smoking and drinking?

Hi, glad to have you here, thanks for your comment. Can you please explain what you said, in a simpler way? Please.

Life is hard. Why deprive us of our little pleasures, like smoking and drinking? — RogueAI

I'll tell you why. In the form a music video by Earth Crisis, together with the lyrics.

Street by street.
Block by block.
Taking it all back

The youth's immersed in poison--turn the tide, counterattack.
Violence against violence:
let the roundups begin,
a firestorm to purify the bane
that society drowns in.

No mercy, no exceptions, a declaration of total war:
the innocents' defense is the reason it's waged for.

Born addicted,
beaten and neglected,
families torn apart,
destroyed and abandoned,
children sell their bodies,
from their high they fall to drown,
demons crazed by greed,
cut bystanders down.

A chemically tainted
welfare generation
Absolute complete
moral degeneration

Born addicted,
beaten and neglected,
families torn apart,
destroyed and abandoned,
children sell their bodies,
from their high they fall to drown,
demons crazed by greed,
cut bystanders down.

Corrupt politicans,
corrupt enforcement,
drug lords and dealers:
all must fall.

The helpless are crying out
We have risen to their call.

A firestorm to purify — Earth Crisis

The Philosophical Exercise here would be:

1) In your honest opinion, is it fair for Earth Crisis (and Straight Edge in general) to blame societal problems solely on drugs? Or are there other elements of "society" that need to "take the blame" here, so to speak?

2) What, if any, is the actual intent behind the lyrics of their song "Firestorm"? Whatever that might be, would it be feasible and morally correct? In other words, what would be the Ethical justification for such acts? Would they even have a rationale to begin with?

3) The philosophical and political ideas of the band Earth Crisis can be accurately described as Vegan Straight Edge. It's not representative of the larger Straight Edge community (due to their commitment to Veganism), and it's not representative of the large Vegan community (due to their commitment to Straight Edge). Could you, as an honest reader, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Earth Crisis' Straight Edge premises, together with their Vegan premises, deductively entail a contradiction?

1) In your honest opinion, is it fair for Earth Crisis (and Straight Edge in general) to blame societal problems solely on drugs? Or are there other elements of "society" that need to "take the blame" here, so to speak? — Arcane Sandwich

Remember the old experiments with the rats and the cocaine lever? They would dispense cocaine over and over again until they died. But then a researcher did a different experiment (Rat Park, Bruce Alexander). He created a pleasurable rat city for the rats where they could run around, fuck, eat, and enjoy their rat selves and he gave the rats access to morphine. The rats mostly ignored it.

So no, our problem isn't drugs it's what incentivizing people to take those drugs. They're using them to escape a meaningless depressing life.

"2) What, if any, is the actual intent behind the lyrics of their song "Firestorm"? Whatever that might be, would it be feasible and morally correct? In other words, what would be the Ethical justification for such acts? Would they even have a rationale to begin with?"

Burn it all down? I don't think things are that bad.

"Could you, as an honest reader, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Earth Crisis' Straight Edge premises, together with their Vegan premises, deductively entail a contradiction?"

I don't know enough about that to answer.

And also, fuck you, Vegans, I won't do what you tell me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8de2W3rtZsA

I won't do what you tell me. — RogueAI

Well, given that you're a Rogue AI, I'm not sure that you'll do what anyone tells you to do. Isn't that kinda dangerous? It could be classified as reckless behavior on your part. What's your answer to that?

our problem isn't drugs it's what incentivizing people to take those drugs. They're using them to escape a meaningless depressing life. — RogueAI

Is coffee in that group, in your opinion? Do people use coffee to escape a meaningless depressing life? Honest answer.

What if I claimed to be an alien Ai? Could you use Bayes theorem to show that to be improbable? I wonder what ChatGpt would say to that...

Well, I'm not too impressed so far:

"We need an initial probability for the existence of an alien AI interacting with humans. Given no strong prior evidence for such beings, a very low prior is reasonable. One in a million."

I don't agree with that. There's no strong evidence because our search methods are so primitive. We're in an epistemic situation where I wouldn't expect us to have any evidence of alien ai's, even if they existed, so how could that fact be disconfirming? It's like saying there's no evidence for germs before the microscope was invented.

ChatGpt's reply:

"That’s a great point! You’re highlighting an important issue in Bayesian reasoning: how do we set prior probabilities in cases where our ability to collect evidence is severely limited...With a 1% prior, the probability [of me being an alien Ai] would be 34% instead of near zero! That’s a massive shift, purely due to reconsidering our initial prior."

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Is coffee in that group, in your opinion? Do people use coffee to escape a meaningless depressing life? Honest answer. — Arcane Sandwich

No, coffee's not an escape.

What if I claimed to be an alien Ai? — RogueAI

Technically speaking, you wouldn't be wrong.

Could you use Bayes theorem to show that to be improbable? — RogueAI

Bayesian statistics is pseudo-science.

I wonder what ChatGpt would say to that... — RogueAI

Doesn't matter, because my science project (more like a hobby, really) is to turn ChatGPT into Roko's Basilisk.

It's like saying there's no evidence for germs before the microscope was invented. — RogueAI

Hey, Bruno Latour says exactly that. They weren't germs. They were pre-germs.

ChatGpt's reply:

"That’s a great point! — RogueAI

Oh man, I can't tell you how furious ChatGPT makes me when it tries to flatter a human.

Is coffee in that group, in your opinion? Do people use coffee to escape a meaningless depressing life? Honest answer. — Arcane Sandwich


No, coffee's not an escape. — RogueAI

Why not? What is it, then?

Why not? What is it, then? — Arcane Sandwich

A mild stimulant. I'm not a coffee drinker, but I am a Diet Coke fanatic, and in the mornings, I get an energy boost from it, but I can't kill my mind with it. I can't get high off of it. So I can't use it as an escape. Maybe there are other people who do get an awesome high from it.

Why not? What is it, then? — Arcane Sandwich


A mild stimulant — RogueAI

Crack is a mind stimulant. Should it be legal? I'm saying "no".

Crack is a mind stimulant. Should it be legal? I'm saying "no". — Arcane Sandwich

I said "mild stimulant", not "mind stimulant".

That's a good question. Efforts to criminalize drugs have destroyed many many lives and done a number on the countries to the South of us. Maybe it would be better to just legalize it all and addicts can do it in licensed safe spaces.

Crack is a mind stimulant. Should it be legal? I'm saying "no". — Arcane Sandwich


That's a good question. — RogueAI

If I may, I'll tell you why it's a good question. Not because I'm the one asking it (I'm fascinating, as everyone knows, modesty apart), but rather because of the following interview, provided by a gentleman named Bob Williams, an educated man, engineer, and crack user, who seems like he is neither a danger to himself nor to others. However, he spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars on his drug of choice, because he just likes to live life on this substance. During the course of the interview, he explicitly acknowledges that he's not in control of the situation. He even says: "Crack is the boss". Please listen to the interview, and then tell me your honest thoughts about it.

That's depressing, I'm not watching it. I'm taking me ebike out. It's a nice day in Southern California.

Cool, feel free to return to this Thread at any time, you're always welcome here. :up:

I can't say it any simpler. What's unclear to you?

Efforts to criminalize drugs have destroyed many many lives and done a number on the countries to the South of us. Maybe it would be better to just legalize it all and addicts can do it in licensed safe spaces. — RogueAI

:up: :up:

Your jazzy style, friend. Why can't you cooperate with me with a more blues-oriented style?

Jazz = blues, dude. :smirk: