Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol use/vs.helplessness

[Guest guest]

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

Dave, dont we get enough drivel from this guy without you encouraging

hom to produce more?

[Guest guest]

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

Dave, dont we get enough drivel from this guy without you encouraging

hom to produce more?

[Guest guest]

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

Dave, dont we get enough drivel from this guy without you encouraging

hom to produce more?

[Guest guest]

> who is floyd agian? i recall his name being mention ere years

> ago. isnt he a AA nazi shrink who is on one of treatment mailing

> lists right? he jsut got out of talbot recently? geez, and this guy

> think he has more expertise than stanton? lol.

He was in Talbott a long time ago. Like most AAs he thinks the fact

that he once drank himself stupid a lot gives him greater authority to

talk about alcohol/addiction problems in general than a Social

Scientist who studies the overall evidence.

P.

[Guest guest]

> who is floyd agian? i recall his name being mention ere years

> ago. isnt he a AA nazi shrink who is on one of treatment mailing

> lists right? he jsut got out of talbot recently? geez, and this guy

> think he has more expertise than stanton? lol.

He was in Talbott a long time ago. Like most AAs he thinks the fact

that he once drank himself stupid a lot gives him greater authority to

talk about alcohol/addiction problems in general than a Social

Scientist who studies the overall evidence.

P.

[Guest guest]

> who is floyd agian? i recall his name being mention ere years

> ago. isnt he a AA nazi shrink who is on one of treatment mailing

> lists right? he jsut got out of talbot recently? geez, and this guy

> think he has more expertise than stanton? lol.

He was in Talbott a long time ago. Like most AAs he thinks the fact

that he once drank himself stupid a lot gives him greater authority to

talk about alcohol/addiction problems in general than a Social

Scientist who studies the overall evidence.

P.

[Guest guest]

> > > People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve

> pleasures. But> there are always negative consequences:

> hangovers, disorientation, > bodily destruction.

>

> but they accept that risk for themselves, as intelligent, adults,

> capable of free will and responsbile drinking, and so does

> society, for most part.

I like reading what you guys write and I like responding. I am not sure

who said what here, but I think I am in the middle of this argument. One

side is saying the classic alcohol is bad - destructive - nothing good in

it. The other side uses the classic argument that moderate drinkers

healthier than the average human being. So, I think using drugs and alcohol

is not necessarily a destructive act. I think the use of any drug totally

changes the way a person thinks - and not only for the " high " period but

perhaps for their whole life. I don't think that is a negative thing. So

many people are so rigid who have used little or no drugs that I can not let

myself believe that they are superior or healthier or better off than me.

In fact I think my mind is much more open to rational thought than many I

have met who are very intolerant or readily dismiss new ideas. That's not

entirely attributable to my prior use of drugs, but probably to my sheer

willfulness as a person. But I don't think the drug use hurt that much.

(oh shit I am in denial!) So, my point is, I don't you can say 100% that

drug use is destructive, wrong, bad, creates negative energy or anything

like that. I think drug use can create a lot of growth that would never

otherwise occur.

The other argument is that people who drink a glass of wine at dinner are

healthier than those who don't just makes me laugh. Its a statistic, so it

doesn't mean much. It means that those in the survey who drank a glass of

wine with dinner were more healthy than the rest of the people in the survey

who did not. What is healthy? Who were the rest of the people? A bunch of

alcoholics and smokers and normal unhealthy, unfit people? Maybe the idea

that stress causes health problems is true, and maybe the idea that a glass

of wine with dinner reduces stress is true, but I think there are other ways

to reduce stress, probably more effective and maybe even cheaper ways to

reduce stress. Maybe the wine actually does do something to the meat that

is being consumed so that the meat causes less negative consequences to the

heart and circulatory system, but maybe not consuming the meat would have

been a better alternative drinking wine with the meat. Comparing people who

drink a little wine to those who don't doesn't mean much since they can be

so different in so many millions of other ways. My personal opinion is that

human beings can drink one glass of wine, or as many glasses as they want

to. My opinion is that one glass a day probably doesn't cause much/if any

(and so what if it does cause a little harm, you only live once) harm, while

I am pretty sure several glasses do cause significant harm over time. I

> If people learn how to attain pleasure through

> > natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures --

> then they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at

> the expense of personal damage

That might be better than the glass of wine with dinner, actually. But

doesn't everything cause damage? I think so. Whenever you breathe, you

breathe in shit that you shouldn't breathe in. Whenever you eat, its

infected, nothing is pure, and everything causes damage. I think its a weak

argument, not necessarily wrong, but its not working on me.

> people do that as well. aerobic, highs, well that's exercise, you

> can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

> will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

> goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

> these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

> can cause harm. thats what you fail to acknowledge. it

> has been shown that those who have one glasses of red win a

> day have lower cholesterol, with no measurable or

> significant damage. alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Yah, good point, it sounds like someone trying to dictate to others, and

I think that's a negative in a free society. We seem to have plenty of

rules and regulations in ample supply already.

> also, as i shown with the other species, attaining pleasure from

> outside sources, such as alcohol IS natural. unless you

> think these animals are some how not being true to their nature?

> hell, i could argue eating or drinking substances for the natural

> highs they cause is more of a natural act than running a

> marathon for that high.

Well nature is kinda stupid. Nature causes earthquakes and floods and

all kinds of bad shit, so saying " this is the natural way so it is the best

way " is pretty dumb.

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

I don't know who asked this, doesn't look like anyone answered. I think

trusting yourself to a shrink at this point in time is a lot like trusting

yourself to a heart doctor 200 years ago. They had drugs that worked

sometimes, and they kinda knew what was going inside your chest way back

then, but they have come a long way. I think psychiatry still has a very

long way to go. Fortunately there seem to be a lot of people focused on

psychology and advancements in most fields seem to be occurring more quickly

than they did 200 years ago. I think learning how to cure and heal people,

becoming a doctor or researcher is a very noble and worthwhile venture, but

I think many doctors forget about science with their egos. They believe

things like the disease theory of alcoholism when it hasn't been proven,

when it hasn't even advanced in fifty years despite billions of research

dollars. Doctors aren't gods, they make lots of mistakes and many seem to

value their reputation and ego and salary above the actual fruits of their

labor. Like I said above, I think there is a lot to be discovered in the

psychology field. I think the best thing to do would try avoid

psychologists until they figure out what they are doing... but how to stay

sane in an insane world? 200 years ago if you didn't eat meat your heart

would outlive you, its not that simple though.

[Guest guest]

> > > People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve

> pleasures. But> there are always negative consequences:

> hangovers, disorientation, > bodily destruction.

>

> but they accept that risk for themselves, as intelligent, adults,

> capable of free will and responsbile drinking, and so does

> society, for most part.

I like reading what you guys write and I like responding. I am not sure

who said what here, but I think I am in the middle of this argument. One

side is saying the classic alcohol is bad - destructive - nothing good in

it. The other side uses the classic argument that moderate drinkers

healthier than the average human being. So, I think using drugs and alcohol

is not necessarily a destructive act. I think the use of any drug totally

changes the way a person thinks - and not only for the " high " period but

perhaps for their whole life. I don't think that is a negative thing. So

many people are so rigid who have used little or no drugs that I can not let

myself believe that they are superior or healthier or better off than me.

In fact I think my mind is much more open to rational thought than many I

have met who are very intolerant or readily dismiss new ideas. That's not

entirely attributable to my prior use of drugs, but probably to my sheer

willfulness as a person. But I don't think the drug use hurt that much.

(oh shit I am in denial!) So, my point is, I don't you can say 100% that

drug use is destructive, wrong, bad, creates negative energy or anything

like that. I think drug use can create a lot of growth that would never

otherwise occur.

The other argument is that people who drink a glass of wine at dinner are

healthier than those who don't just makes me laugh. Its a statistic, so it

doesn't mean much. It means that those in the survey who drank a glass of

wine with dinner were more healthy than the rest of the people in the survey

who did not. What is healthy? Who were the rest of the people? A bunch of

alcoholics and smokers and normal unhealthy, unfit people? Maybe the idea

that stress causes health problems is true, and maybe the idea that a glass

of wine with dinner reduces stress is true, but I think there are other ways

to reduce stress, probably more effective and maybe even cheaper ways to

reduce stress. Maybe the wine actually does do something to the meat that

is being consumed so that the meat causes less negative consequences to the

heart and circulatory system, but maybe not consuming the meat would have

been a better alternative drinking wine with the meat. Comparing people who

drink a little wine to those who don't doesn't mean much since they can be

so different in so many millions of other ways. My personal opinion is that

human beings can drink one glass of wine, or as many glasses as they want

to. My opinion is that one glass a day probably doesn't cause much/if any

(and so what if it does cause a little harm, you only live once) harm, while

I am pretty sure several glasses do cause significant harm over time. I

> If people learn how to attain pleasure through

> > natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures --

> then they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at

> the expense of personal damage

That might be better than the glass of wine with dinner, actually. But

doesn't everything cause damage? I think so. Whenever you breathe, you

breathe in shit that you shouldn't breathe in. Whenever you eat, its

infected, nothing is pure, and everything causes damage. I think its a weak

argument, not necessarily wrong, but its not working on me.

> people do that as well. aerobic, highs, well that's exercise, you

> can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

> will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

> goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

> these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

> can cause harm. thats what you fail to acknowledge. it

> has been shown that those who have one glasses of red win a

> day have lower cholesterol, with no measurable or

> significant damage. alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Yah, good point, it sounds like someone trying to dictate to others, and

I think that's a negative in a free society. We seem to have plenty of

rules and regulations in ample supply already.

> also, as i shown with the other species, attaining pleasure from

> outside sources, such as alcohol IS natural. unless you

> think these animals are some how not being true to their nature?

> hell, i could argue eating or drinking substances for the natural

> highs they cause is more of a natural act than running a

> marathon for that high.

Well nature is kinda stupid. Nature causes earthquakes and floods and

all kinds of bad shit, so saying " this is the natural way so it is the best

way " is pretty dumb.

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

I don't know who asked this, doesn't look like anyone answered. I think

trusting yourself to a shrink at this point in time is a lot like trusting

yourself to a heart doctor 200 years ago. They had drugs that worked

sometimes, and they kinda knew what was going inside your chest way back

then, but they have come a long way. I think psychiatry still has a very

long way to go. Fortunately there seem to be a lot of people focused on

psychology and advancements in most fields seem to be occurring more quickly

than they did 200 years ago. I think learning how to cure and heal people,

becoming a doctor or researcher is a very noble and worthwhile venture, but

I think many doctors forget about science with their egos. They believe

things like the disease theory of alcoholism when it hasn't been proven,

when it hasn't even advanced in fifty years despite billions of research

dollars. Doctors aren't gods, they make lots of mistakes and many seem to

value their reputation and ego and salary above the actual fruits of their

labor. Like I said above, I think there is a lot to be discovered in the

psychology field. I think the best thing to do would try avoid

psychologists until they figure out what they are doing... but how to stay

sane in an insane world? 200 years ago if you didn't eat meat your heart

would outlive you, its not that simple though.

[Guest guest]

> > > People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve

> pleasures. But> there are always negative consequences:

> hangovers, disorientation, > bodily destruction.

>

> but they accept that risk for themselves, as intelligent, adults,

> capable of free will and responsbile drinking, and so does

> society, for most part.

I like reading what you guys write and I like responding. I am not sure

who said what here, but I think I am in the middle of this argument. One

side is saying the classic alcohol is bad - destructive - nothing good in

it. The other side uses the classic argument that moderate drinkers

healthier than the average human being. So, I think using drugs and alcohol

is not necessarily a destructive act. I think the use of any drug totally

changes the way a person thinks - and not only for the " high " period but

perhaps for their whole life. I don't think that is a negative thing. So

many people are so rigid who have used little or no drugs that I can not let

myself believe that they are superior or healthier or better off than me.

In fact I think my mind is much more open to rational thought than many I

have met who are very intolerant or readily dismiss new ideas. That's not

entirely attributable to my prior use of drugs, but probably to my sheer

willfulness as a person. But I don't think the drug use hurt that much.

(oh shit I am in denial!) So, my point is, I don't you can say 100% that

drug use is destructive, wrong, bad, creates negative energy or anything

like that. I think drug use can create a lot of growth that would never

otherwise occur.

The other argument is that people who drink a glass of wine at dinner are

healthier than those who don't just makes me laugh. Its a statistic, so it

doesn't mean much. It means that those in the survey who drank a glass of

wine with dinner were more healthy than the rest of the people in the survey

who did not. What is healthy? Who were the rest of the people? A bunch of

alcoholics and smokers and normal unhealthy, unfit people? Maybe the idea

that stress causes health problems is true, and maybe the idea that a glass

of wine with dinner reduces stress is true, but I think there are other ways

to reduce stress, probably more effective and maybe even cheaper ways to

reduce stress. Maybe the wine actually does do something to the meat that

is being consumed so that the meat causes less negative consequences to the

heart and circulatory system, but maybe not consuming the meat would have

been a better alternative drinking wine with the meat. Comparing people who

drink a little wine to those who don't doesn't mean much since they can be

so different in so many millions of other ways. My personal opinion is that

human beings can drink one glass of wine, or as many glasses as they want

to. My opinion is that one glass a day probably doesn't cause much/if any

(and so what if it does cause a little harm, you only live once) harm, while

I am pretty sure several glasses do cause significant harm over time. I

> If people learn how to attain pleasure through

> > natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures --

> then they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at

> the expense of personal damage

That might be better than the glass of wine with dinner, actually. But

doesn't everything cause damage? I think so. Whenever you breathe, you

breathe in shit that you shouldn't breathe in. Whenever you eat, its

infected, nothing is pure, and everything causes damage. I think its a weak

argument, not necessarily wrong, but its not working on me.

> people do that as well. aerobic, highs, well that's exercise, you

> can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

> will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

> goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

> these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

> can cause harm. thats what you fail to acknowledge. it

> has been shown that those who have one glasses of red win a

> day have lower cholesterol, with no measurable or

> significant damage. alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Yah, good point, it sounds like someone trying to dictate to others, and

I think that's a negative in a free society. We seem to have plenty of

rules and regulations in ample supply already.

> also, as i shown with the other species, attaining pleasure from

> outside sources, such as alcohol IS natural. unless you

> think these animals are some how not being true to their nature?

> hell, i could argue eating or drinking substances for the natural

> highs they cause is more of a natural act than running a

> marathon for that high.

Well nature is kinda stupid. Nature causes earthquakes and floods and

all kinds of bad shit, so saying " this is the natural way so it is the best

way " is pretty dumb.

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

I don't know who asked this, doesn't look like anyone answered. I think

trusting yourself to a shrink at this point in time is a lot like trusting

yourself to a heart doctor 200 years ago. They had drugs that worked

sometimes, and they kinda knew what was going inside your chest way back

then, but they have come a long way. I think psychiatry still has a very

long way to go. Fortunately there seem to be a lot of people focused on

psychology and advancements in most fields seem to be occurring more quickly

than they did 200 years ago. I think learning how to cure and heal people,

becoming a doctor or researcher is a very noble and worthwhile venture, but

I think many doctors forget about science with their egos. They believe

things like the disease theory of alcoholism when it hasn't been proven,

when it hasn't even advanced in fifty years despite billions of research

dollars. Doctors aren't gods, they make lots of mistakes and many seem to

value their reputation and ego and salary above the actual fruits of their

labor. Like I said above, I think there is a lot to be discovered in the

psychology field. I think the best thing to do would try avoid

psychologists until they figure out what they are doing... but how to stay

sane in an insane world? 200 years ago if you didn't eat meat your heart

would outlive you, its not that simple though.

[Guest guest]

> The other argument is that people who drink a glass of wine at dinner are

> healthier than those who don't just makes me laugh. Its a statistic, so it

> doesn't mean much. It means that those in the survey who drank a glass of

> wine with dinner were more healthy than the rest of the people in the survey

> who did not. What is healthy? Who were the rest of the people? A bunch of

> alcoholics and smokers and normal unhealthy, unfit people?

>

--------------

Hi Coolguy --

There have been numerous studies demonstrating a health benefit of

consuming a small amount of alcohol a few times a week. " The rest of the

people " in such studies were certainly not " alcoholics and smokers " etc. -- that

would be a worthless study. All scientific studies match their study groups for

other factors, and in this case (researching heart health) they would certainly

be matched for known heart risk factors. In other words, the study would not

have compared healthy, non-smoking, exercising moderate drinkers with heavy

smoking, sedentary teetotallers. It would have matched for these other factors.

And the studies have conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated that matched for

smoking, diet, and exercise factors, occasional moderate wine drinkers have

healthier hearts than those who don't drink at all. Stress actually has little

do do with it.

The first indications that sparked interest in doing such studies were (1)

the fact that pathologists have long known that even very heavy, abusive

drinkers who have lots of other bodily damage from excessive drinking, have

almost no signs of atherosclerosis (hardened gunk clogging the arteries) -- this

is consistently found in autopsies. Obviously one should not drink excessively,

but it is certainly noteworthy that atherosclerosis declines with alcohol

ingestion -- the idea is to determine what amount of alcohol can have a

significant protection from clogged arteries without producing the damage of

excessive drinking. And (2) the so-called " French paradox " -- that coronary

artery disease is extremely rare among the French, even though they eat tons of

high-fat food including saturated-fat meats and cheeses, the exact thing that is

known to be a risk factor for atheroscleosis. What differs Frenchmen from

Americans? -- (well several things, lol) but relevant to this discussion, that

Frenchmen drink wine on a regular, daily basis, and Americans rarely do.

I agree totally that everyone should be free to consume or not consume any

substance they want, without facing arrogant judgment from others -- but this is

a different issue from scientific and medical reality.

~Rita

>

Maybe the idea

> that stress causes health problems is true, and maybe the idea that a glass

> of wine with dinner reduces stress is true, but I think there are other ways

> to reduce stress, probably more effective and maybe even cheaper ways to

> reduce stress. Maybe the wine actually does do something to the meat that

> is being consumed so that the meat causes less negative consequences to the

> heart and circulatory system, but maybe not consuming the meat would have

> been a better alternative drinking wine with the meat. Comparing people who

> drink a little wine to those who don't doesn't mean much since they can be

> so different in so many millions of other ways.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/23/01 2:23:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< Again- let me say I am NOT talking about blaming

> victims - I'm talking about HOW TO NOT GET VICTIMIZED

> ANY MORE. Is anyone with me on this?! >>

Right beside ya....Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/23/01 2:23:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< Again- let me say I am NOT talking about blaming

> victims - I'm talking about HOW TO NOT GET VICTIMIZED

> ANY MORE. Is anyone with me on this?! >>

Right beside ya....Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/23/01 2:23:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< Again- let me say I am NOT talking about blaming

> victims - I'm talking about HOW TO NOT GET VICTIMIZED

> ANY MORE. Is anyone with me on this?! >>

Right beside ya....Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/01 8:14:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< Besides, " effect on the body " is not the single rational measure of value.

Who's to say how many units of pleasure, relaxation, enhanced perception and

creativity equate to how many neurons?

--wally >>

I would have to go with Wally on this one. This reminds me of

the " precious bodily fluids " paranoia mind set. (Dr. Strangelove lol).

Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/01 8:14:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< Besides, " effect on the body " is not the single rational measure of value.

Who's to say how many units of pleasure, relaxation, enhanced perception and

creativity equate to how many neurons?

--wally >>

I would have to go with Wally on this one. This reminds me of

the " precious bodily fluids " paranoia mind set. (Dr. Strangelove lol).

Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/01 8:14:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< Besides, " effect on the body " is not the single rational measure of value.

Who's to say how many units of pleasure, relaxation, enhanced perception and

creativity equate to how many neurons?

--wally >>

I would have to go with Wally on this one. This reminds me of

the " precious bodily fluids " paranoia mind set. (Dr. Strangelove lol).

Piper.

[Guest guest]

> alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

around him. For instance, prolonged alcohol use can cost a person

significant money spent on his drinking habit. It can also result in

drunk driving accidents, damaging oneself and innocent drivers of

other cars. It can lead to ruined love relationships due to

neglecting and/or abusing one's love partner. But the prime harm

alcohol does is to one's biological chemistry. Prolonged alcohol

use destroys brain cells, damages the liver, and possibly damages

other body organs.

However, if a person is aware of these harms and makes the decision

to drink alcohol anyway, that is his or her own choice. If someone

accepts these damages to his or her own mind, body, emotions, and

finances, then he or she is completely free to continue using alcohol

(or drugs).

A basic tenet of my philosophy is that each person must be free to do

whatever he or she chooses to do. The only exception is that he or

she cannot initiate physical force or fraud against anyone else. This

implies that a person is free to improve himself through school,

study, and hard work or a person is free to damage himself with

alcohol, drugs, and suicide.

In reality, no government has the moral or legal right to control

drug or alcohol use. Everyone must be free to drink beer, smoke pot,

snort coke, take acid, inject heroin, slit one's wrist, and put a

bullet through one's head. All laws " for one's own

good " are bogus and give external authorities illicit power to

control other people through gun-backed agents of force.

Ironically, drug laws that forbid the sale and use of pot actually

drive the market price of pot to inflated levels that create

conditions for underground markets. With the inflated market price of

pot, drug dealers seek to gain maximum profits by selling pot to ever-

more people including elementary-age children who are too innocent

and unknowledgeable to understand the long-range damage that pot

causes. In that way, the anti-drug movement actually spreads the use

of pot onto vulnerable people that would not otherwise have used pot.

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

treat specific medical conditions. Psychiatry is still in a state of

pre-science, like how science was at the time of the early Greek

scientist Thales of Miletus (640 BC – 560 BC). Today there are

precious few psychiatrists and psychotherapists who base their

approach on reality and man's nature. One such psychotherapist is

iel Branden. See http://www.nathanielbranden.com

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

[Guest guest]

> alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

around him. For instance, prolonged alcohol use can cost a person

significant money spent on his drinking habit. It can also result in

drunk driving accidents, damaging oneself and innocent drivers of

other cars. It can lead to ruined love relationships due to

neglecting and/or abusing one's love partner. But the prime harm

alcohol does is to one's biological chemistry. Prolonged alcohol

use destroys brain cells, damages the liver, and possibly damages

other body organs.

However, if a person is aware of these harms and makes the decision

to drink alcohol anyway, that is his or her own choice. If someone

accepts these damages to his or her own mind, body, emotions, and

finances, then he or she is completely free to continue using alcohol

(or drugs).

A basic tenet of my philosophy is that each person must be free to do

whatever he or she chooses to do. The only exception is that he or

she cannot initiate physical force or fraud against anyone else. This

implies that a person is free to improve himself through school,

study, and hard work or a person is free to damage himself with

alcohol, drugs, and suicide.

In reality, no government has the moral or legal right to control

drug or alcohol use. Everyone must be free to drink beer, smoke pot,

snort coke, take acid, inject heroin, slit one's wrist, and put a

bullet through one's head. All laws " for one's own

good " are bogus and give external authorities illicit power to

control other people through gun-backed agents of force.

Ironically, drug laws that forbid the sale and use of pot actually

drive the market price of pot to inflated levels that create

conditions for underground markets. With the inflated market price of

pot, drug dealers seek to gain maximum profits by selling pot to ever-

more people including elementary-age children who are too innocent

and unknowledgeable to understand the long-range damage that pot

causes. In that way, the anti-drug movement actually spreads the use

of pot onto vulnerable people that would not otherwise have used pot.

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

treat specific medical conditions. Psychiatry is still in a state of

pre-science, like how science was at the time of the early Greek

scientist Thales of Miletus (640 BC – 560 BC). Today there are

precious few psychiatrists and psychotherapists who base their

approach on reality and man's nature. One such psychotherapist is

iel Branden. See http://www.nathanielbranden.com

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

[Guest guest]

> alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

around him. For instance, prolonged alcohol use can cost a person

significant money spent on his drinking habit. It can also result in

drunk driving accidents, damaging oneself and innocent drivers of

other cars. It can lead to ruined love relationships due to

neglecting and/or abusing one's love partner. But the prime harm

alcohol does is to one's biological chemistry. Prolonged alcohol

use destroys brain cells, damages the liver, and possibly damages

other body organs.

However, if a person is aware of these harms and makes the decision

to drink alcohol anyway, that is his or her own choice. If someone

accepts these damages to his or her own mind, body, emotions, and

finances, then he or she is completely free to continue using alcohol

(or drugs).

A basic tenet of my philosophy is that each person must be free to do

whatever he or she chooses to do. The only exception is that he or

she cannot initiate physical force or fraud against anyone else. This

implies that a person is free to improve himself through school,

study, and hard work or a person is free to damage himself with

alcohol, drugs, and suicide.

In reality, no government has the moral or legal right to control

drug or alcohol use. Everyone must be free to drink beer, smoke pot,

snort coke, take acid, inject heroin, slit one's wrist, and put a

bullet through one's head. All laws " for one's own

good " are bogus and give external authorities illicit power to

control other people through gun-backed agents of force.

Ironically, drug laws that forbid the sale and use of pot actually

drive the market price of pot to inflated levels that create

conditions for underground markets. With the inflated market price of

pot, drug dealers seek to gain maximum profits by selling pot to ever-

more people including elementary-age children who are too innocent

and unknowledgeable to understand the long-range damage that pot

causes. In that way, the anti-drug movement actually spreads the use

of pot onto vulnerable people that would not otherwise have used pot.

> what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> does that fit into your views?

Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

treat specific medical conditions. Psychiatry is still in a state of

pre-science, like how science was at the time of the early Greek

scientist Thales of Miletus (640 BC – 560 BC). Today there are

precious few psychiatrists and psychotherapists who base their

approach on reality and man's nature. One such psychotherapist is

iel Branden. See http://www.nathanielbranden.com

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

[Guest guest]

> > what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> > does that fit into your views?

>

> Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

> treat specific medical conditions.

At least there is one prejudice you dont have, but you are still

coming out with a claim of universal toxicity of alcohol against all

the epidemiology suggesting otherwise. In the last 50 years or so

Psychiatry is scientific.

[Guest guest]

> > what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> > does that fit into your views?

>

> Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

> treat specific medical conditions.

At least there is one prejudice you dont have, but you are still

coming out with a claim of universal toxicity of alcohol against all

the epidemiology suggesting otherwise. In the last 50 years or so

Psychiatry is scientific.

[Guest guest]

> > what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> > does that fit into your views?

>

> Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

> treat specific medical conditions.

At least there is one prejudice you dont have, but you are still

coming out with a claim of universal toxicity of alcohol against all

the epidemiology suggesting otherwise. In the last 50 years or so

Psychiatry is scientific.

[Guest guest]

What's the problem, Mr. Hunter? You keep making the same unsubstantiated

pronouncements, ignoring all reasons and citations of evidence to the

contrary. It appears that your conscious mind has been seriously disoriented

by commonplace dogmas and superstitions about alcohol.

--wally

Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

use/vs.helplessness

> alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

around him. For instance, prolonged alcohol use can cost a person

significant money spent on his drinking habit. It can also result in

drunk driving accidents, damaging oneself and innocent drivers of

other cars. It can lead to ruined love relationships due to

neglecting and/or abusing one's love partner. But the prime harm

alcohol does is to one's biological chemistry. Prolonged alcohol

use destroys brain cells, damages the liver, and possibly damages

other body organs.

[snip]

[Guest guest]

What's the problem, Mr. Hunter? You keep making the same unsubstantiated

pronouncements, ignoring all reasons and citations of evidence to the

contrary. It appears that your conscious mind has been seriously disoriented

by commonplace dogmas and superstitions about alcohol.

--wally

Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

use/vs.helplessness

> alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

around him. For instance, prolonged alcohol use can cost a person

significant money spent on his drinking habit. It can also result in

drunk driving accidents, damaging oneself and innocent drivers of

other cars. It can lead to ruined love relationships due to

neglecting and/or abusing one's love partner. But the prime harm

alcohol does is to one's biological chemistry. Prolonged alcohol

use destroys brain cells, damages the liver, and possibly damages

other body organs.

[snip]

[Guest guest]

What's the problem, Mr. Hunter? You keep making the same unsubstantiated

pronouncements, ignoring all reasons and citations of evidence to the

contrary. It appears that your conscious mind has been seriously disoriented

by commonplace dogmas and superstitions about alcohol.

--wally

Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

use/vs.helplessness

> alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

for

> people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> on scincere concern for anyones well being.

Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

around him. For instance, prolonged alcohol use can cost a person

significant money spent on his drinking habit. It can also result in

drunk driving accidents, damaging oneself and innocent drivers of

other cars. It can lead to ruined love relationships due to

neglecting and/or abusing one's love partner. But the prime harm

alcohol does is to one's biological chemistry. Prolonged alcohol

use destroys brain cells, damages the liver, and possibly damages

other body organs.

[snip]