21–30 of 218 posts
I was the first to blame the drug companies (they certainly warrant blame) but there are other factors to consider that are addressed in this article that I failed to previous realize. Worth the 15-20 minutes to read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article : "The drug was ubiquitous among both the British and American forces in the War of Independence as an indispensable medicine for the pain of battlefield injuries." What is your point exactly?
The point is that there is a war being fought against American society, and the weapon is: drugs. Its one of those weapons where the willingness of the intended recipient to apply it to themselves is key to its effectiveness. Its not a 'popular' opinion, but it has to be pointed out that the use of drugs to devolve society is as old as the political hills, yet its not something that is taught in schools, nor do gener…
Also: for every person who has decried the devolution of society into drug-addled hedonism, there have been several who envisioned society evolving itself through drugs. (The article mentions one right in the first paragraph.) We're now finding that drugs previously thought purely recreational (e.g. MDMA) may have considerable therapeutic benefit, especially in dealing with addictions and mental illnesses.
If there is anyone meeting your description of "enemies" foisting opioids on the public - well, I'd have to go with the major pharmaceutical companies, and they don't exactly fit the "enemies of America" bill. If anything, they're part of America, an unintended consequence of our peculiar mix of free-market ideology, regulatory capture, and radical individualism.
We thought as well that this may be why there are so many people engaged rabidly in the consumption of fiction these days; it seems to me just as much a symptom of a broader crisis of meaning as opiods may be. A fictional world is readily graspable; you can wrap your whole head around the whole thing. And meaning is easily found in the simplified moral space that these simulations are often constructed under. It seems to me just as much a salve for the meta-crisis of meaninglessness as a drug, in some sense.
I don't mean to ascribe any moral right or wrong to any of this; in fact, that's the whole thrust of it. It's harder and harder to know what moral right and wrong are.
---
EDIT: it's been pointed out that I should probably be less careless throwing a word like "objective" around: I mean it only in the sense of mass perceived objectivity. If a society agrees on it, it's as close to objectivity as we seem to be able to get. Substitute it for "Societal Consensus", if it pleases you, but I think the brain treats them as one and the same.
I've been talking with my brother a lot about this recently, especially as a function of the overall decrease of 'meaning' in the world. I think it goes back even further, to the advent of postmodernism in the throes of World War I. They were the first lost generation, but I don't think they were the last. The death of modernism and the accompanying assault on the bastions of objective meaning (as discussed in the ar…
I've been talking with my brother a lot about this recently, especially as a function of the overall decrease of 'meaning' in the world. I think it goes back even further, to the advent of postmodernism in the throes of World War I. They were the first lost generation, but I don't think they were the last. The death of modernism and the accompanying assault on the bastions of objective meaning (as discussed in the ar…
I partially would like to call out the intense pressure of the american dream. If you do not make it in this total ideology- you are a failure with nothing but yourself to blame.
To make that bareable- drugs seem to be a easy way out of a bonemill to nowhere.
I've been talking with my brother a lot about this recently, especially as a function of the overall decrease of 'meaning' in the world. I think it goes back even further, to the advent of postmodernism in the throes of World War I. They were the first lost generation, but I don't think they were the last. The death of modernism and the accompanying assault on the bastions of objective meaning (as discussed in the ar…
Um, people have been “rabidly” consuming fiction since the Greeks created theater?
The way to treat the opioid crisis is that it is a battlefield, and America is losing. Drugs have long been seen as a way of usurping the will of ones' enemies; it is no different now. America has been under pharmacological attack for decades; its people are too addicted to see that this is by design. Drugs have weakened America, and that is by design of its enemies.
Which enemies are we talking about here? Are they domestic or foreign? What is their goal? I see where you're going with this argument, there are certainly historical precedents, but you haven't said enough to make it plausible.
But in america, these are homespun, and to find some sock puppet to blame- wont solve the problem.
At least we are moving past the scape goats and taking a thoughtful, considerate look at what is actually happening. I regularly have long conversations about this with my mother, a nurse in Louisville, KY and steadfast American patriot. She is at a loss of any explanation these days. I am torn when we talk about it because I know her pride in our country is a big part of her, but it doesn’t rest with what she is see…
This sounds like a good development?
We will some day realize that the psychological situation of income inequality (or other socioeconomic equivalences) is the root of drug epidemics.
The sooner that happens, the better, because neither incarceration or isolated treatment can address this.
Everyone grows up with different experiences and I think being raised different would have delayed where I’m at with this but I have worried for a long time that particular increases of drug use cannot happen purely due to availability of the substance. It doesn’t make sense in the narratives I’ve witnessed, mainly referring to what motivates mass drug use, accounting for lushes and party behavior as constants.
I have never been a drug user but have observed my friends use and have lost a few of them when I was younger.
It simply doesn’t happen in healthy social environments.
I am a motivated and passionate person. My life always has goals and ideas floating around. When I was younger, sometimes my friends didn’t keep up, or something like that. Every time I have lost a friend to drugs(death or otherwise), it was preceded by me acknowledging they no longer felt the hope and excitement for the future we had once shared. In retrospect, it usually correlated with something in their life they were ashamed of, a harsh reality or realization that they didn’t have certain opportunities. It could be small but still have big repercussions. I have felt shame for thinking I may have overwhelmed them with my dreaming, higher-than-average curiosity or motivation for constructive activities. Although I am that weirdo, it doesn’t usually send people to drug use. What does is usually private and disguised in shame.
The monster here is loss of hope.
I have learned this argument usually comes across as either fleeting or ideological. It’s very hard to put into words to someone with another comprehension of the problem, and witnessing one or two people face substance abuse doesn’t bring it home either. I developed this view from watching how crowds of people use drugs. When you isolate the party people and the lushes, you are left with people who simply feel like they don’t count.
I've been talking with my brother a lot about this recently, especially as a function of the overall decrease of 'meaning' in the world. I think it goes back even further, to the advent of postmodernism in the throes of World War I. They were the first lost generation, but I don't think they were the last. The death of modernism and the accompanying assault on the bastions of objective meaning (as discussed in the ar…
I've been reading "Sapiens" and one of the recurring themes is the idea humanity's success is built on the ability to create useful fictions to bind large groups to a goal or cause. I think we are struggling with that in the first world as we give up religion without a clear replacement fiction that reassures people someone will be there if they get sick and when they die. In addition, we are discovering some groups have (for want of a better term) weaponized fiction to achieve their goals.
I liked it all a lot better when that last sentence lived entirely in the fiction of people like Warren Ellis and not in reality.
EDIT: Sapiens, not Simians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like a good development?
The loss of a source of meaning in life is a dangerous thing, especially if it isn't replaced by something else. That way lies nihilism, and, if the thesis of the article is to be believed, opiod addiction.
Sounds exhausting.