992 karma · joined December 17, 2014
The function and intention of marriage has changed through time and locality.
To pick a singular aspect of a complex social construct and use that to base its purpose and definition on is myopic.
Of course, if we define moderate use of a substance as the level of consumption where health effects are little to none, you can consume something without jeopardizing your health.
You seem to be implying that either heroin or cocaine cannot be consumed in moderation (which is false[0][1]), or that their moderate consumption is tremendously bad for your health. If it's the latter, prescription opioids and stimulants like methylphenidate can be taken in moderation with limited health effects.
Many prescription opioids are very chemically similar to heroin. All prescription opioids work primarily via the same mechanism as heroin. Heroin is used in a medical context under the name diamorphine.
[0] http://jod.sagepub.com/content/13/2/219.abstract [1] http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/AbstinenceHR/ControlledH...
They've done this consistently for decades.
If you asked an addict if they want to have to consume a product everyday in increasing quantities, lest they convulse into a fit of pain, insomnia, sweat and uncontrollable bowel movements for a week straight, they'd say no.
Free will and choice do not factor in with this scenario and a laissez-faire attitude towards highly addictive drugs can be damaging.
People turn to hard drugs for a variety of reasons, a good percentage of them out of untreated mental illness or their situation in life. Addressing why people turn to them would eliminate a lot of demand that is not organic.
The decades of brutality against the poor and racial minorities before that triggered no such reaction and was applauded by many.
If it came to that, a trial by judge versus a trial by jury might have a better outcome than relying on a group of laymen who just want to go home to decide your fate.
Then a few years later I started drinking coffee regularly. Same thing happened when I quit.
Now, I drink green tea in the mornings occasionally and have had no problems with stopping.
If you don't have a need consume caffeine, don't start. It seems to follow the tolerance/withdrawal pattern at even small doses.
The Tea Party can be motivated to support our continued invasions as long as it fits in their framework or is promoted by their figureheads, just like any other party.
There's too much money to be made in fucking up the world.
For many cases it is more effective than medication or boosts the efficacy of pharmacological intervention.
Therapy is an appropriate tool for treating biological conditions. Patients with OCD, whose brain structure is visibly altered because it is a biological condition, respond surprisingly well to CBT and Exposure-Response Prevention based therapy. It is the recommended first line of treatment for the disease [1].
As someone who suffered from OCD, along with depression and anxiety, therapy is a successful way to adapt and overcome diseases that are firmly rooted in biological origins. I experience a vastly improved quality of life than I did years ago. Of course this is an anecdote, but the research backs up the my claims of efficacy.
Given that these diseases affect a network of neurons, learning to adapt to structural, biological or learned abnormalities in the network is crucial.
A study on CBT[2] and depression came to an interesting conclusion:
The evidence shows that that CT [cognitive therapy] is as efficacious as ADM [anti-depressant medication], and that its effects are more enduring. Thus, even if CT and ADM work through the same mechanisms in the same temporal order to reduce depressive symptoms, any enduring effects of CT must be produced by mechanisms that are not mobilized in the same way by ADM. The model that is proposed in this article suggests that CT helps patients learn to recruit prefrontal regulatory brain mechanisms – a skill that these patients could continue to use long after treatment ends. Exploring the neural bases of these effects should enhance our understanding of the nature of depression and allow us to develop more powerful and targeted preventive interventions.
Therapy works and most of all it lasts. Medication may work, but when you stop taking it, you're back to square one. The most important aspect of this is the acknowledgment that therapy works, through mechanisms not activated by medication. Understanding why therapy works can open the doors to understanding the disease and new modes of treatment.
[1] http://psychiatryonline.org/pb/assets/raw/sitewide/practice_...
What right does someone have to reap the benefits of society and not give back? What right does someone have to accumulate wealth from a system based on hundreds of years of driving people from their land and means of existence (enclosure), violence (anti-labor/union action), political misgiving (anti-labor laws), collusion and still not contribute?
Stratification to this extent wasn't possible without stripping people of their ability to bargain with capital for a share of profits from increased productivity. It wasn't possible without whittling the system down to the point where the wealthy pay a fraction of the taxes they did or could compared to other classes and to the point where raising their taxes is political suicide.
> Others (of a more utilitarian leaning) wonder whether redistribution will 'kill the engine of prosperity'. The USA has overtaken Britain in per capita GDP by growing 1% (point) faster per year for 100 years, and many believe that redistribution reduces growth.
Evidence for this? Countries with a strong social safety net sure don't seem have killed their engines of prosperity.
Treatment options for schizophrenia call for some of the strongest psychoactives psychiatrists prescribe. They will lower your lifespan, ability to stay conscious, cause serious metabolic disorders, diabetes, obesity, gynecomastia and less commonly movement disorders. They're a first line of treatment and are prescribed long term or for life. Quitting or switching medications may make the disorder even worse than it was before starting medication.
If a professional can look at a case and decide that maybe therapy + less to no medication can work for that patient, it can result in a significant improvement in quality and length of life.
>Could the resources devoted to this study have been better used to explore what is creating the problem?
Probably not, because the study was funded with this question in mind.
http://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infa...
Suggesting any of those to today's classical liberal would cause them to froth at the mouth and denounce him as a socialist.
Almost any opportunity for an income in the US exists because of the society its tax dollars prop up. To reap the benefits of society and not pay into it despite the available avenues of contribution would be leeching.
> By and large, they don't recognize any attempt to simply "drop out". And that's especially true if one remains within the "lines drawn on a map and labeled as the United States".
Look harder. People drop out all the time. There are communities of people like that, not paying taxes, living "off the land" (squatting, growing some food and relying on society for everything else) all over the US.
The government can't tax what isn't earned, recorded or under your name.
>You can't "stop paying rent" because of the "man with the gun"! Or do you not think that if you stop paying "your" taxes the IRS won't eventually send "men with guns" (police) to arrest you?
They'll eventually garnish your wages, freeze your funds, file a tax lien and slew of other inconvenient things after giving you fair warning and opportunity to pay back taxes. It takes deliberate fraud or willful evasion to end up behind bars. The only men with guns you will encounter will be the bailiffs in tax court.
Please leave the hyperbole where it belongs. There is no man with a gun forcing you to pay taxes.
But if you walk into a bar or post on Twitter talking about how much you dislike ___, don't be surprised if someone has a reaction. I certainly won't be inclined to start a Socratic dialogue exploring why you dislike ___ in an attempt to persuade you.
You wouldn't spout a racist manifesto on a talk show, don't expect to be able to do it on a medium that everyone can see and think nothing will come of it. You need to be acutely aware of your audience and reach when you speak.
In this context, do not be surprised if people cannot separate their judgment of the comment from the person making it. Especially when the context is "I just read this awful comment on my screen by a person I don't know and already dislike."
Where does someone's right to say what they want without consequence end and my right to have a thought or reaction to what I heard begin?
Your right to speak your opinion coexists with people's right to have a reaction. This might be socially inconvenient, but that has always been the reality. Nothing has changed because the avenue expression is online, just the audience and availability of your speech.