Drugs, addiction and free will

[madd0ct0r]

Generally speaking, I ascribe to the theory of 'none of my business - between consenting adults you should be free to do whatever.'

The 'consenting' part is important.

So looking at addictive drugs, can a user be said to be 'consenting?'

You can argue he 'consented' by taking the pills in the first place, knowing he'd likely get addicted.
BUT that leaves no room for stupidity and ego.

But once you accept that actors may not always be fully rational, how can 'none of my business' be justified?

[Spoonist]

But once you accept that actors may not always be fully rational, how can 'none of my business' be justified?

It can't.
Hence why society/law has not and cannot take such an approach.
Its only it's misguided individuals who can take such a copout approach to morality.

Instead each dilemma must be considered individually or you would mix up unrelated issues with different moral implications.

[madd0ct0r]

but considering each dilemma generates a huge amount of cognitive overhead.

the whole point of working out a moral framework is so you don't have to start from first principles in each situation.

I can see there being important axes of addictiveness and harm (eg, coffee is highly addictive, but not neccesarily harmful, while alchohol is less* addictive but more dangerous)

*I'm not 100% sure on that.

[Spoonist]

Again, that is only excuses for the willfully intellectual sellouts. Morality isn't as simple as a single sentence or one simple concept could ever cover it. Especially one of non-interferance. Most religions and lots of philosophies have tried to do that and failed miserably.
But to cover your points.
Nope, considering each dilemma seperately does not have to generate a cognitive overhead if you apply a principle of basic goals and add precedents to that. With such precedents you can group dilemmas together and compare them for clarity. The human brain is marvellously good at such thought patterns. For instance in your case you have already entered such a precedent in "Consenting adults" to limit the damage from your failed morality. But it doesn't take long to realise that you need a lot more caveats where the concept of direct and indirect harm will easily shatter any illusions of a "simple" approach.
If we just expand your words, what do you mean by "consenting" and "adult"?
At which point does an individual possess enough information to be truly consenting? Could people with mental disabilities be consenting adults in your system? In a power disparity like boss-employee or officer-soldier would they be both consenting? (As in take this performance enhancing drug). etc
Is adult a specific age? When we grow old and feeble are we still adults?
Does it matter if I have kids?
etc
So regardless of how simple you think you start out you need to contextualize your so called simple code.
So no, you are only creating an illusion of not having a cognitive overhead while in reality your system is more complex than the ones used by societies in general, ie law and culture.

[madd0ct0r]

If we just expand your words, what do you mean by "consenting" and "adult"?
At which point does an individual possess enough information to be truly consenting? Could people with mental disabilities be consenting adults in your system? In a power disparity like boss-employee or officer-soldier would they be both consenting? (As in take this performance enhancing drug). etc
Is adult a specific age? When we grow old and feeble are we still adults?
Does it matter if I have kids?
etc
So regardless of how simple you think you start out you need to contextualize your so called simple code.
So no, you are only creating an illusion of not having a cognitive overhead while in reality your system is more complex than the ones used by societies in general, ie law and culture.

Adult is pretty clearly defined to me:

Old and feeble we are still adults. above a certain age, we are adults (age to vary depending on the situation in question, but basically following British Law)
If old and senile, then not consenting. If badly mentally disabled, not consenting.
(This fairly obviously goes on a sliding scale, with the more important the situation the higher the degree of consent eg, a slightly senile grandmother asking to be given a cup of hot tea is a lot less problematic then the same grandmother trying to buy a handgun for example)

as for children, you have the right to pass your responsibilities, but the state (or another entity) must take those responsibilities from you with your consent.
Again, this is problematic for the case of a traumatized single mother being asked to give her baby up, but that goes back under consent issues, in much the same way I support stopping a suicide if you can reasonably conclude the person might thank you for it later.

It's just the drug issue I keep getting stuck on, and I'm not sure why.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ask yourself another question: using the same logic you are applying to drugs and alcohol, how does your moral stance cover sex or attraction to the opposite sex? That is physiologically addictive in much the same way as drugs are, but it is more deeply ingrained into our consciousness (why the hell do you think masturbation happens?).

Does that mean sex is ever truly consenting? After all, we are driven by a physiological "addiction" to it. By the logic you are using, all sex is non-consensual because adults are unable to make free and chemical-free decisions about it. It doesn't matter that sometimes people can refuse sex; sometimes drug addicts can refuse drugs, too ... and it doesn't matter that rape exists, because so does non-consensual drug use (rufies, anyone?).

[madd0ct0r]

Well, since the brain's not divorced from the body there's a certain baseline of brain chemistry we can never avoid, so I'm not to worried about that.

You're going backwards. I'm trying to figure out whether having previously consented to drug use = continued consent in the presence of addiction. There's no way to get from that to 'Ziggy can drug this person with his consent (which I would deny) therefore Ziggy is also allowed to rape.'

There's more holes in that then a cheesgrater, and it's just as chafing.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, since the brain's not divorced from the body there's a certain baseline of brain chemistry we can never avoid, so I'm not to worried about that.

Where do you draw the line? What criteria are we using beyond your say so?

You're going backwards. I'm trying to figure out whether having previously consented to drug use = continued consent in the presence of addiction. There's no way to get from that to 'Ziggy can drug this person with his consent (which I would deny) therefore Ziggy is also allowed to rape.'

...

I am not even sure what point you are trying to make here, and I think you completely misunderstood the argument I was trying to make.

Let me restate my point, see if we can get on the same page here.

You said: "So looking at addictive drugs, can a user be said to be 'consenting?'"

The implication here is that the behavioral and physiological affects of addiction are "interfering" with our free will in some capacity. However, many of these same affects are found when looking at sex, attraction, etc. By the logic of the question you pose in the OP, how can sex ever be considered consenting? After all, it is physiologically interfering with out ability to make rational decisions.

If you are trying to make a coherent moral stance with relation to addictive drugs, you can't ignore other powerful factors in shaping behavior. Sex is just the first example I pulled out of my ass, but there are more. Hell, what about adrenaline junkies going sky-diving or base jumping just for kicks? That's addiction of the same variety.

[Purple]

The implication here is that the behavioral and physiological affects of addiction are "interfering" with our free will in some capacity. However, many of these same affects are found when looking at sex, attraction, etc. By the logic of the question you pose in the OP, how can sex ever be considered consenting? After all, it is physiologically interfering with out ability to make rational decisions.

Forget sex. Just think eating and drinking, or even flat out breathing. After all, we have an addiction to expelling carbon dioxide from our systems.

[madd0ct0r]

That? I can give that up anytime I want...

I guess we were on different pages Ziggy. i see what you mean now. Plus i spelt 'without' as 'with' which was pretty fucking stupid.

ok. I wouldn't class sex or even adrenaline addiction in the same way, simply because it's an internal thing.

My issue with the drugs question is that at one point a mostly rational human stuck something in themselves. That's ok, as far as I'm concerned its allowed. But afterwards, with a habit built up can the same person be said to be rationally choosing anymore.

Your argument about basejumpers exactly parrallels this but it tastes very very different, possibly becuase there's more then one way to satisfy an adrenaline junkie, they just choose that particualr route.

[Eulogy]

It's not free will if you HAVE TO do it. You have no choice but to eat, drink, and breathe; lots of people would very much prefer not needing calories, O2, and H2O. It's also why forced consent isn't consent at all.

Likewise, physical withdrawals can make the addict dead or wishing he was if not handled properly. An addict who wishes to kick the habit cannot go cold turkey, his body won't let him, ergo not free will. He has to kick it in such a way that his body cooperates, and being bound to the whims of meat limits your options, yes?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Forget sex. Just think eating and drinking, or even flat out breathing. After all, we have an addiction to expelling carbon dioxide from our systems.

True. The main reason I chose sex is that it isn't strictly necessary to survive; in fact, since it is so energetically inefficient, our brain has to essentially trick us into liking it enough to keep doing it (which is what a lot of the pleasure pathways of the brain are "for", and what many drugs exploit). Breathing as an example isn't as strong, because there isn't a feedback that strictly tells us we like to breathe. With food we could make the argument, though, because we choose to eat certain foods (like those high in sugars) that aren't as healthy for us as a multivitamin gruel but are enjoyable.

I wouldn't class sex or even adrenaline addiction in the same way, simply because it's an internal thing.

Technically, you could make the argument that drugs are an internal thing, too, because many of them only operate by taking advantage of built-in pathways in the brain to make you feel pleasure. Cocaine, for example. Of course, this is being pretty nitpick and is evading your point just for the hell of it.

possibly becuase there's more then one way to satisfy an adrenaline junkie, they just choose that particualr route.

You can say the same thing as drug addicts. There's a reason methadone was once very popular for "weaning" heroin addicts. Honestly, the factors that keep a drug addict on one particular drug are largely social or economic (or just inertia); for the most part, a junky could get their fix in any number of different ways.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm not sure that's true.

broad example: when I'm craving a black coffee in the morning whiskey isn't going to cut it, anymore then coffee could satisfy the urge for something cool and amber on the rocks after a stressful day.
The drugs involved, alcohol and caffeine are both addictive, but work completely differently, you can't swap one for the other.

methadone/heroin - they're both opiates. It'd be like quitting Vietnamese Filter Coffee for French Press*. The thing is, methadone is restricted - you do have to be on a scheme or something AFAIK. If the person is unable to use an option due to to social/economic reasons, it's not really an option is it?
(yah, I subscribe to the concept of real freedoms vs ideal freedoms)

Going back to that internal/external remark - for drugs, an external source** is the source of the addiction. Sex addiction is something that happens to most of us as we grow up but it's spontaneously generated. The issue of choice and consent never come into it because we never have to choose whether to start wanting sex or not.

Adrenaline junkies are an interesting case, as it is caused by a habit of thrill seeking (someone shout me down on that one if I'm wrong), and does meet other standards for addiction (such as withdrawal symptoms***). On the other hand, it's rare the addiction is totally socially disabling and, frankly, a lot of people grow out of it. So I've never really thought about it because it's a bit like coffee - theoretically interesting, but not a problem in reality.


*one is served on the street, will blow the head off a newcomer and has extra chemicals mixed in by the storeholder. The other is milder and probably a wee bit safer, but still as addictive in the long run.

**outside of horrific situations like heroin babies.

***side note - most extreme sport guys I know also practice meditation or other means of pacifying their brain outside of the sport.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The drugs involved, alcohol and caffeine are both addictive, but work completely differently, you can't swap one for the other.

To a certain point, yes.

methadone/heroin - they're both opiates. It'd be like quitting Vietnamese Filter Coffee for French Press*. The thing is, methadone is restricted - you do have to be on a scheme or something AFAIK. If the person is unable to use an option due to to social/economic reasons, it's not really an option is it?

But this is a social/economic factor, not a biological one. It isn't an invalid argument, but if you are trying to construct some hypothetical moral system around the interaction of drugs and free will, are social and economic factors really relevant? For example, a large proportion of drugs addicts are black or hispanic, due to socioeconomic and cultural conditions that increase the probability and prevalence of those conditions in those communities. Would we then say that black and hispanic people have "less" free will because they are getting "more" addicted?

Going back to that internal/external remark - for drugs, an external source** is the source of the addiction. Sex addiction is something that happens to most of us as we grow up but it's spontaneously generated. The issue of choice and consent never come into it because we never have to choose whether to start wanting sex or not.

Fair enough. But consider this, too: many people are genetically pre-disposed towards drug addiction; or, more appropriately, due to a variety of genetic and epigenetic factors, there is a subset of the population that has a much higher probability of becoming drug addicts. Conversely, there are people that can take highly addictive drugs and not become addicted. The issue of choice and consent are at least mitigated in some respect here, aren't they?

Adrenaline junkies are an interesting case, as it is caused by a habit of thrill seeking (someone shout me down on that one if I'm wrong), and does meet other standards for addiction (such as withdrawal symptoms***). On the other hand, it's rare the addiction is totally socially disabling and, frankly, a lot of people grow out of it.

The "adrenaline junkie" can actually cover a very wide variety of behaviors. At a chemical level, all it requires is an inclination towards stressful situations that trigger the body to release epinephrin and endorphins. Read some of this (yeah, yeah, I know it's about.com ... it's just the only source I can find that isn't overly technical); this can manifest itself in much more subtle ways than jumping off bridges and the like. I will try to find a better source than that one, but you get the idea. Some possible manifestations do have negative social repercussions. But, again, there are drugs that people take compulsively that don't have any real major negative health effects, yet still carry certain social stigmas ... those stigmas are out of whack with the actual science, so should we really use them as a guideline?

So I've never really thought about it because it's a bit like coffee - theoretically interesting, but not a problem in reality.

I know people who literally cannot function without coffee. It's only "not a problem" because the act itself is socially acceptable.

[madd0ct0r]

And the reason it's socially acceptable is because you can be very hyped up on caffeine and yet still function well within society. The same cannot be said for alcohol (which is illegal at certain levels in certain situations, like driving), and even less so for stronger drugs.
Cannabis is an aberration here, being illegal with very poor justification.

You can't escape socio-econmoic factors with drugs, and I think my internal moral framework should have them built in, somehow.

Let's look at tobacco and cannabis.
One is very expensive, dangerous in the long run and highly addictive. It soothes the nerves and reduces appetite.
the other is very expensive, probably dangerous in the long run and much less addictive. It soothes the nerves and normally makes the person feel highly content.

Now part of me dislikes cannabis, because I've worked with guys who smoked before. They never amounted to anything, never improved beyond the shit shoveling job we had and never really felt the motivation to try and improve themselves. Was the weed taking away their ambition, or did they have no fucking chance in the first place and it was the consolation prize that made things bearable? So part of me dislikes it, but a much bigger chunk says 'you paternal twat. if they are happy, why make them miserable and frustrated like yourself?'

And this kind of feeling feeds back into my half formed (half baked) stance on addictive drugs.

[Ziggy Stardust]

And the reason it's socially acceptable is because you can be very hyped up on caffeine and yet still function well within society. The same cannot be said for alcohol (which is illegal at certain levels in certain situations, like driving), and even less so for stronger drugs.

Fair enough.

Cannabis is an aberration here, being illegal with very poor justification.

Well, weed is a weird drug. Don't listen to the people that say it will melt your brain, but on the other hand don't listen to the people claiming there are no negative side effects whatsoever. It can do some very bad things to you, especially in the long term. I know people who dropped out of school because they were legitimately addicted to smoking weed and the lifestyle surrounding it. I also know people who function at a very high level while smoking fairly regularly.

You can't escape socio-econmoic factors with drugs, and I think my internal moral framework should have them built in, somehow.

The socio-economic stuff just makes thing very complicated. You are right, you can't escape them. But if you are designing some moral framework, how do you take them into account? No easy answers, here. To a certain point, it is nice to control for those factors and look at the drugs on somewhat even footing. However, at some point you have to recognize the context. The decision to make is which is more important in your moral system.

Let's look at tobacco and cannabis.
One is very expensive, dangerous in the long run and highly addictive. It soothes the nerves and reduces appetite.
the other is very expensive, probably dangerous in the long run and much less addictive. It soothes the nerves and normally makes the person feel highly content.

Maybe things are different down in Vietnam, but tobacco is traditionally quite cheap. Even at its priciest (see: New York City), it is relatively cheap compared to other substances. In addition, although cannabis in and of itself isn't that bad for you, the act of smoking is ... many people mix cannabis with tobacco (spliffs/joints/blunts), and even when they don't, continuous and forceful inhalation of smoke is just bad for you, no matter what chemicals are burning. Anyway, this is just nitpicking.

[Surlethe]

So looking at addictive drugs, can a user be said to be 'consenting?

Why not? "Addicted to X" is simply another way of saying "places very great value on continuing to use X."

[K. A. Pital]

So looking at addictive drugs, can a user be said to be 'consenting?

Why not? "Addicted to X" is simply another way of saying "places very great value on continuing to use X."

If he is addicted, his brain responds to stimuli in a different fashion and there's a reinforcing feedback loop (as well as the withdrawal pain on the other side). We don't consider people with altered mental state to be "in their right mind" (e.g. psychos are ruled incapable of controlling their own actions). Why should we consider a long-term addict anything different? His mind's fucked up by the substance.

And yes I know the Mises theory that psychos are just "having different goals than us" and we should consider them normal like others, and abandon the idea of a norm. I just find it silly.

[Surlethe]

If he is addicted, his brain responds to stimuli in a different fashion and there's a reinforcing feedback loop (as well as the withdrawal pain on the other side). We don't consider people with altered mental state to be "in their right mind" (e.g. psychos are ruled incapable of controlling their own actions). Why should we consider a long-term addict anything different? His mind's fucked up by the substance.

Sure, we rule that psychos are incapable of controlling their own actions based on some presumptions about how we have free will and abnormal people don't. But that just seems silly to me -- even if there are different processes going on in a psycho's or an addict's brain than a normal person's brain, they're translating stimuli into actions according to some locally consistent set of preferences. I don't regard it as inconsistent to say that a drug addict is acting freely; his addiction has just warped his preferences so much that he willingly disregards other norms (or responsibilities, or laws ...).

I don't think people with abnormal preferences should be regarded as normal, by definition. That doesn't mean they are somehow any more irrational than you or me --- someone like Ted Bundy was probably more rational than either of us in going about achieving his goals.

[K. A. Pital]

If we don't include society, social benefit and so on into our criteria of rational action, then these criteria might be pretty much worthless. An entirely subjectivist view of rational action is a nice position, but from the standpoint of helping the society to function and develop it is about as useful as creationism would be to biology. We'd be limited to observation alone.

[Scrib]

If he is addicted, his brain responds to stimuli in a different fashion and there's a reinforcing feedback loop (as well as the withdrawal pain on the other side). We don't consider people with altered mental state to be "in their right mind" (e.g. psychos are ruled incapable of controlling their own actions). Why should we consider a long-term addict anything different? His mind's fucked up by the substance.

Sure, we rule that psychos are incapable of controlling their own actions based on some presumptions about how we have free will and abnormal people don't. But that just seems silly to me -- even if there are different processes going on in a psycho's or an addict's brain than a normal person's brain, they're translating stimuli into actions according to some locally consistent set of preferences. I don't regard it as inconsistent to say that a drug addict is acting freely; his addiction has just warped his preferences so much that he willingly disregards other norms (or responsibilities, or laws ...).

I don't think people with abnormal preferences should be regarded as normal, by definition. That doesn't mean they are somehow any more irrational than you or me --- someone like Ted Bundy was probably more rational than either of us in going about achieving his goals.

I think the issue that's sticks with most people is how predictable a psychopath's decisions are thus we conclude that their actions have to follow a certain "track". Of course, psychopaths are a small subsection of the population with a shared condition so it's easy to draw quick conclusions, I would bet that we're able to predict certain behaviors in people just as easily, it's just harder to label groups.

Everyone is irrational, the direction we are irrational in is the only thing that changes. Could you say that a neurotypical mother being bombarded with chemicals that get her feeling and acting a certain way is any more free-willed than a psychopath? No. She just has different incentives and since her position is more diverse than something with clear indicators she's slightly harder to pin down because there's a wider pool, yet she will act in a manner consistent with her "condition".

If we don't include society, social benefit and so on into our criteria of rational action, then these criteria might be pretty much worthless. An entirely subjectivist view of rational action is a nice position, but from the standpoint of helping the society to function and develop it is about as useful as creationism would be to biology. We'd be limited to observation alone.

This. I'm sorry but the whole concept of free will seems more than a bit illusory. The thing that separates benign "addictions" that dictate our lives like coffee,sex,child-rearing is that they: (a) Cause less harm to you yourself, and (b) have some sort of social value. And even the first is tied to the latter which is arguably more important. IMHO social benefit is the only true argument.

Going back to that internal/external remark - for drugs, an external source** is the source of the addiction. Sex addiction is something that happens to most of us as we grow up but it's spontaneously generated. The issue of choice and consent never come into it because we never have to choose whether to start wanting sex or not.

Perhaps I've read too much Bakker: but why does it matter where what controls you comes from? The only possible reason I can see is that society has accounted for our internally-controlled addictions or more importantly, relies on them, while the externally-controlled ones can be damaging.

[Surlethe]

If we don't include society, social benefit and so on into our criteria of rational action, then these criteria might be pretty much worthless. An entirely subjectivist view of rational action is a nice position, but from the standpoint of helping the society to function and develop it is about as useful as creationism would be to biology. We'd be limited to observation alone.

I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that a person should not be considered "rational" unless they're taking the society-wide consequences of their actions into account when making decisions?

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that a person should not be considered "rational" unless they're taking the society-wide consequences of their actions into account when making decisions?

Yes, because otherwise even complete psychopaths with a set of values incompatible even with very basic human social units like, say, primitive tribes (not to speak of today's humanity) would be considered rational. In casual talk when a person goes on a killing spree all of a sudden or suffers an emotional outburst which is greatly disproportionate to its cause, we often say he or she is acting irrationally. However, how do we know? If as you say the set of goals is completely subjective, perhaps being a psycho is the preferred way of achieving them for the person in question.

In this case the rationality of action loses meaning. In fact, we're turned to the Misesian definition of rationality, which is "Action is rational by definition of action". It is rather useless and also an unfalsifiable statement as well, since you can never know the precise thought process of a person and thus you can't really decide whether he's acting to achieve goals or making errors in his actions, since you can never know the goals.

However, why do we say that Hitler acted irrationally when he declared war on everyone during World War II or kept slaughtering death camp inmates and wasting resources on this even as the military situation was definetely unfavorable and every warm body was required on the front? I guess because we think about a better way to achieve social development than Hitler did. We can demonstrate that nations can in fact become well-developed (or at least win wars) without slaughtering civilians like pests. We can demonstrate that winning a war is more important than killing prisoners of war and Jews, but that is because we try to achieve similar goals, but ones which would lead to a better outcome.

So there is no real criteria of rationality outside the society. Just as there's no human outside the society as well - "real Mowglis" often simply fail to learn even human speech.