NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48343

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 4.8 KB | 109 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!acd4!TEFS1!wdo
From: [e-mail] (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:48:39 GMT
Lines: 98

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>>>I am not an addictions counselor.  I come into contact with
>>>many *users* and their families.  The distinction between "use"
>>>and "abuse" is quite *moot* if the impaired individual is un-
>>>able to function in a supportive capacity for a spouse or a
>>>child.  "I'm sorry, Sally, Daddy is wasted right now but I'm
>>>sure he'll tuck you in some other night".
>
>>Similarly, the distinction between use and non-use is moot of the
>>individual in question simply fails to function in the capacity you
>>describe. This seems to be a concept that Bill has serious trouble
>>grasping.
>
>The irrelevance of your statement is uncharacteristic of you.  I
>was (at the risk of stating the very obvious) not discussing the
>difference between use and non-use.  I was responding to Larry,
>who questioned my understanding of use vs. abuse.
>
>Yes, and I was pointing out that a similar lack of distinction obtains
>between use and nonuse. And that what we are concerned about is
>dysfunctional behavior, not use, nonuse, or abuse.

It most cases, dysfunctional behavior cannot be correctly assessed
or treated without understanding and influencing relevant environ-
mental and social contributors.  Besides, to the extent that abuse
is self-destructive behavior, it indicates dysfunction.

>> At any rate,
>>given your lack of real-life experience with such problems, you
>>might be well advised to obtain some before questioning my under-
>>standing of the issue.
>
>How impressive. Argumentum ad hominem and argument by authority
>in the same sentence. Two fallacies in one. Try using the scientific
>method. Post some data.

Unnecessary, though it exists.  Before going into private practice,
one of the psychologists I work with was the director of the Addic-
tions Services division of our local mental health center.  He has
a fairly impressive library of relevant reference material which I
was browsing through last night.  But I see no value in posting any
of it.  Inevitably, the controls would be deemed inadequate or the
conclusions misinterpreted.  The only solid research would likely
consist of those studies (if one could find them) that support your
personal agenda.  But since nothing that I read seemed to do that,
they're all undoubtedly flawed.

>>  Until then, your speculations about the
>>benign social consequences of recreational drug use have no real
>>credibility.
>
>I'm being lectured about credibility by a guy who can't even show
>controlled studies that:
>1) Therapy is useful.

There are numerous controlled studies that demonstrate the effec-
piveness of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, et al, so you're really
beating a dead horse in saying this.

>2) Drugs induce irresponsible behavior.

My argument is that over time, artificially induced mood states
modify the individual's experience of normal affect.  In changing
that baseline, non-medicated mood states come to be perceived as
"depression" or "anxiety".  Dependence is achieved, however slowly.
Risking that process can be considered irresponsible, hence regu-
lar drug use can be considered irresponsible.  In terms of drugs
inducing irresponsible behavior, some obviously *do* insofar as
they work to impair judgement and lessen inhibitions.

>And yet is simultaneously maintaining that both therapy is useful
>and that drugs should be banned to prevent dysfunctional behavior.
>How entertaining.

Certainly no more so than your naivete, Eric.  Hopefully, as you
get older you'll also become less egocentric.  If we all lived in
a social vacuum, regulating what people put into their bodies would
be a moot effort.  In the real world, though, other people are too
often victimized by drug abusers, and even recreational users.  If
that weren't an inevitable consequence, you'd have no real argument
from me about legalization.

>>  You don't seem at all interested in how your be-
>>havior might ultimately affect the lives of other people.
>
>And you seem to be uninterested in letting people live they way
>they choose, preferring to impose your own factually unsubstantiated
>theories about the way they should live upon them.

If people choose to behave in ways that hurt the people around them,
they're no longer engaging in "private behavior".

Bill