The sociological literature debunks the idea that there is a biological basis for addiction. As far as I know, there is no rock solid evidence, yet, that show that people who are addicts are so becasue they were congenitally born to become addicts.
All you're pointing at is that long-term drug use changes the "reward circuitry of the brain". So? That doesn't change the research findings: Some of the so-called effects of the drug have nothing to do with the drug, as defined by its _chemical_ structure in and of itself, but have mainly to do with the social conditions under which addicts use drugs. Nothing about opium, for ex, that cause additcs to starve themselves. When they're around free, prepared food, they eat and maintain healthy weights. So, one so-called danger of the drug isn't about the drug, but wholly about social conditions. That doesn't mean that opium doesn't make addicts tolerate hunger better, that is surely an effect that results from the drug itself. It just means that opium doesn't make people not want to eat at all and it means that, if there's a danger there, the danger lies in lack of money and lack of ready-to-eat affordable meals or maybe just social isolation of living only around other opium addicts with no one around to say, "Chow time!"
>And BTW, since when do you get to separate the lifestyle impacts of drugs
>from the drug itself?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Can you give me an example of how the chemical structure of a substance invariably causes social behavior? I can think of examples, I'd like to understand, though, what you mean, because it's not clear.
> That's exactly the same as what the NRA says about
>guns.
LOL. First of all, whatever it is that the NRA says -- I have no clue what you're driving at -- this is called logical fallacy. It's the same maneuver as painting someone's posish as "like the nazis".
Second, I used to hold an F.F.A. -- that's a license to sell firearms. So, trying to smear the position I'm taking as "like the NRA" doesn't fly wit' me.
Before you fly off into sterotyping bliss, check yourself or I'll just ignore it all. If you're unwilling to treat me as a human being with complex views, which I've thought long and hard about and even changed (!) because of my arguments with others here and even with fellow 2a supporters, then you and every other LOBster who think as you do can suck the two inch long hair growing out of the mole on my left nut.
I will lay back and think of England while y'all feast.
:)
Don't take this the wrong way, coz I like you an' all, it's just that I'm not about to argue with someone who wants to operate from stereotypes about gun owners AND uses logical fallacy. Not worth my time.
>Ordinary people know all this, and the left should stop pretending its all
>just a bummer laid on us heads by the Man. Drugs are fucking people up in
>this world, and we should be providing solutions, not excuses.
See, if I were into LF, I'd say you sound like a conservative or sumpin'. :-o
and no, I'm going to shut down the snitilicious account so I won't be tempted to download mail and argue -- which is too easy to do as I'm working on something where I don't know where to start, so i'm procrastinating. Doncha HATE that?
k