Political Crossfire Forums

[Malcolm Kyle]

According to the work of Dr Gene-Jack Wang, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, overeating it seems is the same as drug addiction.

Recent research in obesity involving scans on seven overweight people revealed the regions of the brain that controlled satiety were the same as those in drug addicts.

The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The voluntiers received implants which sent electronic signals to the vagus nerve which then relays messages of satiety to the brain, thus reducing the desire to eat.

Whilst feeling full with the implant turned on, an increased metabolism in the hippocampus was revealed, an area of the brain associated with emotional behaviour.

Lead researcher Dr Wang said: "As soon as we saw these scans, it reminded me of what we had studied in drug abuse when people were under a craving situation - the same areas in the brain lit up."

He said this supported the idea that there were commonalities in the brain circuitry that underlay food intake and compulsive drug intake.

Is it so surprising that a link between drug addiction and overeating has been found?
Shouldn't we now be even more ready to put aside our prejudices and stop cageing people for their illnesses and conditions?

http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/535217.html

[Prole]

Can you explain to us all the logic behind "Two types of addication are arguably similar...therefore, stop locking people up?"

I might as well post an article about African bird migration as a justification for socialized healthcare; it would make about as much sense as your OP.

I don't know about anyone being locked up for having an eating addiction or a drug addiction (drug possession and use, yes, but not just an addiction), unless they become so mentally unstable as to become dangerous to themselves or others. And in this case, the measures are (in theory, at least) purely ones of rehabilitation and protection; not of punishment.

[perdidochas]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: According to the work of Dr Gene-Jack Wang, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, overeating it seems is the same as drug addiction.

Recent research in obesity involving scans on seven overweight people revealed the regions of the brain that controlled satiety were the same as those in drug addicts.

The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The voluntiers received implants which sent electronic signals to the vagus nerve which then relays messages of satiety to the brain, thus reducing the desire to eat.

Whilst feeling full with the implant turned on, an increased metabolism in the hippocampus was revealed, an area of the brain associated with emotional behaviour.

Lead researcher Dr Wang said: "As soon as we saw these scans, it reminded me of what we had studied in drug abuse when people were under a craving situation - the same areas in the brain lit up."

He said this supported the idea that there were commonalities in the brain circuitry that underlay food intake and compulsive drug intake.

Is it so surprising that a link between drug addiction and overeating has been found?
Shouldn't we now be even more ready to put aside our prejudices and stop cageing people for their illnesses and conditions?

http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/535217.html

You know those homeless guys with facial tics that piss their pants, and live in the streets. They should be caged for their own protection. Some people with mental illness needs to be temporarily caged.

[ieatfood]

well, since i don't believe in free will, i find many similarities between doing drugs, eating food and committing murder.

One bears no more responsibility for any of these offenses.

However, as a society, we have a role in saying that certain acts are "bad" while others are "good"

These types of value judgements are what define us as a culture and as human beings. Thus, saying the drugs are "criminal" while obesity is not (even though both are modulated through similar neurological mechanisms) is not at all contradictory or inconsistent. As human beings with a moral sense, we have a duty to define what is and what is not morally and legally acceptable in the society in which we live. After all, it is our society.

[islandhopper]

ieatfood wrote: well, since i don't believe in free will, i find many similarities between doing drugs, eating food and committing murder.

One bears no more responsibility for any of these offenses.

However, as a society, we have a role in saying that certain acts are "bad" while others are "good"

These types of value judgements are what define us as a culture and as human beings. Thus, saying the drugs are "criminal" while obesity is not (even though both are modulated through similar neurological mechanisms) is not at all contradictory or inconsistent. As human beings with a moral sense, we have a duty to define what is and what is not morally and legally acceptable in the society in which we live. After all, it is our society.

As far as I know, having a drug addiction is not illegal in the USA. And what does any of that have to do with scientists possibly finding a mechanism for obesity?

[Malcolm Kyle]

islandhopper wrote:
As far as I know, having a drug addiction is not illegal in the USA. And what does any of that have to do with scientists possibly finding a mechanism for obesity?
In our present "drug war" situation use of or addiction to certain drugs as opposed to certain foods may lead to criminal penalty.
It is high time (no pun intended) that we replaced failed law enforcement policies with harm-reduction strategies, which focus on reducing the societal costs of drug use and drug addiction.

[The Grandmaster]

ieatfood wrote: well, since i don't believe in free will, i find many similarities between doing drugs, eating food and committing murder.


What do you mean you do not believe in free will? You don't believe people are responsible for their choices and actions, or what? You believe everything is already set in stone? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[00timh]

I know this may be extreme but here goes....

in today's pc world we cannot pick or berate someone because of a "problem" such as obesity. And we see many people who will post, partially correct that obesity has an actual biological reasons behind it, including one which I feel is often overlooked called Prader willi syndrome.
http://www.pwsausa.org/

there are numerous other reasons behind obesity as well. What happens though is that because of this, many people who no longer suffer as much indignity due to their treatable physical condition continue to remain and in many cases get worse because society now accepts them more so than they did before.

A child who was fat many years ago was picked on and had stronger motivation to not be fat, as did adults. Along with the fact that more and more today as we are no longer needed to do as much physical activity due to technological advances obesity has become a major health crisis in developed nations, especially the U.S.

The combination of an outword acceptance which is not really a true acceptance but people being less vocal about it and with technological advances causing people to need to do less physical activity we have seen a dramatic increase in the last couple of dcades, especially among younger adults and children.

While it has benefited society to be treated with more dignity, the lack of recognition to do something about it with an emphasis on urgency other than you should do it for yourself and to accept yourself for whatever you are is a further cause of the problem. It was when people did not accept themselves for their treatable conditions that gave them the motivation to change for the better. In other words political correctness is in some ways responsible for this because it has taken away a key motivational factor.

We must be able to find a way to treat people with dignity but at the same time show the urgency for them to correct what is correctable. Otherwise health problems such as obesity will only continue to get worse.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Here's how I see it:

When we as human beings live in society, we agree to certain provisions. One of the provisions in a liberal democracy such as America is that the individual human being must be able to function as a member of society, that is, they must be able to rationally assent to and follow the rules. Anyone who does not meet this criterion is either taken care of by someone (children, the old, the mentally handicapped), or institutionalized. People should be institutionalized if they cannot rationally assent to at least the big rules, because they pose a danger to society and to themselves.

This is of course a gross oversimplification, of course, but it sort of gets at why there is a significant difference between someone strung out on crystal meth and someone who can't stop gobbling down Big Macs. One poses a danger to the survival of members of the society, the other does not.

[Green]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: islandhopper wrote:
As far as I know, having a drug addiction is not illegal in the USA. And what does any of that have to do with scientists possibly finding a mechanism for obesity?
In our present "drug war" situation use of or addiction to certain drugs as opposed to certain foods may lead to criminal penalty.
It is high time (no pun intended) that we replaced failed law enforcement policies with harm-reduction strategies, which focus on reducing the societal costs of drug use and drug addiction.

Percisely, if we are to ban drugs, then according to this study, fat people should be arrested.

Neither should be illegal, because this is only worsening the problem.

[mathurin]

blah

no account is made for level of intoxication
also, food is neccesary for survival in some amount, drug abuse is not
and, a fat person eating too much does no damage to others, hard drug users do

this is a pretty lame angle on legalizing drugs, i have seen better

[The Comrade]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: According to the work of Dr Gene-Jack Wang, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, overeating it seems is the same as drug addiction.

Recent research in obesity involving scans on seven overweight people revealed the regions of the brain that controlled satiety were the same as those in drug addicts.

The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The voluntiers received implants which sent electronic signals to the vagus nerve which then relays messages of satiety to the brain, thus reducing the desire to eat.

Whilst feeling full with the implant turned on, an increased metabolism in the hippocampus was revealed, an area of the brain associated with emotional behaviour.

Lead researcher Dr Wang said: "As soon as we saw these scans, it reminded me of what we had studied in drug abuse when people were under a craving situation - the same areas in the brain lit up."

He said this supported the idea that there were commonalities in the brain circuitry that underlay food intake and compulsive drug intake.

Is it so surprising that a link between drug addiction and overeating has been found?
Shouldn't we now be even more ready to put aside our prejudices and stop cageing people for their illnesses and conditions?

http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/535217.html

keep trying malcolm. one of these days you'll make an argument for legalizing drugs that actually makes sense.

[Malcolm Kyle]

The Comrade wrote: Malcolm Kyle wrote: According to the work of Dr Gene-Jack Wang, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, overeating it seems is the same as drug addiction.

Recent research in obesity involving scans on seven overweight people revealed the regions of the brain that controlled satiety were the same as those in drug addicts.

The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The voluntiers received implants which sent electronic signals to the vagus nerve which then relays messages of satiety to the brain, thus reducing the desire to eat.

Whilst feeling full with the implant turned on, an increased metabolism in the hippocampus was revealed, an area of the brain associated with emotional behaviour.

Lead researcher Dr Wang said: "As soon as we saw these scans, it reminded me of what we had studied in drug abuse when people were under a craving situation - the same areas in the brain lit up."

He said this supported the idea that there were commonalities in the brain circuitry that underlay food intake and compulsive drug intake.

Is it so surprising that a link between drug addiction and overeating has been found?
Shouldn't we now be even more ready to put aside our prejudices and stop cageing people for their illnesses and conditions?

http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/535217.html

keep trying malcolm. one of these days you'll make an argument for legalizing drugs that actually makes sense.
If you can't see it then that's cool by me.

I wish to see the removal of a nefarious piece of public policy which has done the opposite of what it claims to be doing.
There are more drugs now than ever.
They get stronger and more dangerous as each day passes.
Criminals and terrorists are allowed to profit from their manufacture distribution and sale.
Even our children have no problem obtaining these drugs at present.
Prohibition has even failed to keep drugs out of our schools and prisons.
This leads me ( and many others) to conclude that we would all be a lot safer with a legal and regulated market.

[StrawHat]

00timh wrote: I know this may be extreme but here goes....

in today's pc world we cannot pick or berate someone because of a "problem" such as obesity. And we see many people who will post, partially correct that obesity has an actual biological reasons behind it, including one which I feel is often overlooked called Prader willi syndrome.
http://www.pwsausa.org/

there are numerous other reasons behind obesity as well. What happens though is that because of this, many people who no longer suffer as much indignity due to their treatable physical condition continue to remain and in many cases get worse because society now accepts them more so than they did before.

A child who was fat many years ago was picked on and had stronger motivation to not be fat, as did adults. Along with the fact that more and more today as we are no longer needed to do as much physical activity due to technological advances obesity has become a major health crisis in developed nations, especially the U.S.

The combination of an outword acceptance which is not really a true acceptance but people being less vocal about it and with technological advances causing people to need to do less physical activity we have seen a dramatic increase in the last couple of dcades, especially among younger adults and children.

While it has benefited society to be treated with more dignity, the lack of recognition to do something about it with an emphasis on urgency other than you should do it for yourself and to accept yourself for whatever you are is a further cause of the problem. It was when people did not accept themselves for their treatable conditions that gave them the motivation to change for the better. In other words political correctness is in some ways responsible for this because it has taken away a key motivational factor.

We must be able to find a way to treat people with dignity but at the same time show the urgency for them to correct what is correctable. Otherwise health problems such as obesity will only continue to get worse.

Quoted for truth. That's what it is. There's a biological component to many things, among them personality and alcoholism. But we don't say "oh, that's ok, he can't help it" is someone is mean or an alcoholic. Intelligence has a biological component, but when people are dumb, we still say so (i'm not talking about the mentally retarded, before soembody calls me on that). When things are just accepted for what they are, there is much less incentive to change them.

As 00timh said, correct what is correctable.

[mathurin]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: The Comrade wrote: Malcolm Kyle wrote: According to the work of Dr Gene-Jack Wang, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, overeating it seems is the same as drug addiction.

Recent research in obesity involving scans on seven overweight people revealed the regions of the brain that controlled satiety were the same as those in drug addicts.

The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The voluntiers received implants which sent electronic signals to the vagus nerve which then relays messages of satiety to the brain, thus reducing the desire to eat.

Whilst feeling full with the implant turned on, an increased metabolism in the hippocampus was revealed, an area of the brain associated with emotional behaviour.

Lead researcher Dr Wang said: "As soon as we saw these scans, it reminded me of what we had studied in drug abuse when people were under a craving situation - the same areas in the brain lit up."

He said this supported the idea that there were commonalities in the brain circuitry that underlay food intake and compulsive drug intake.

Is it so surprising that a link between drug addiction and overeating has been found?
Shouldn't we now be even more ready to put aside our prejudices and stop cageing people for their illnesses and conditions?

http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/535217.html

keep trying malcolm. one of these days you'll make an argument for legalizing drugs that actually makes sense.
If you can't see it then that's cool by me.

I wish to see the removal of a nefarious piece of public policy which has done the opposite of what it claims to be doing.
There are more drugs now than ever.
They get stronger and more dangerous as each day passes.
Criminals and terrorists are allowed to profit from their manufacture distribution and sale.
Even our children have no problem obtaining these drugs at present.
Prohibition has even failed to keep drugs out of our schools and prisons.
This leads me ( and many others) to conclude that we would all be a lot safer with a legal and regulated market.

i have the argument which i think will make sense to him, so lets see

everyone chooses their path to self destruction, some choose to be a recluse, some choose skydiving, some choose "success" (higher rates of stress and heartattacks) some choose international travel as well, all are self destructive in some way
who are you to choose my path
(disclaimer, rhetorical question, i do not do drugs)

however few drugs users will use this argument, i feel in large part because most are in denial about the self destructive nature of abuse (in modern reality, use that is not objectively medically evaluated = abuse)

who could go along with this argument for softer drugs? drugs that do not create violence in their abusers
this might have an appeasing effect and reduce major drug usage (why use meth when you can get MJ cheaper and legally?)

i would, as a stipulation to such legalization, impose harsher punishments on those stealing to get drugs, legal or illegal. if you have trace amounts in your system at the time of the robbery, you are getting a major punishment
i would also like random drug tests for social programs like public housing and welfare
really i want these anyway, but am willing to make a trade to get them
anybody disagree

[The Comrade]

mathurin wrote:

i have the argument which i think will make sense to him, so lets see

everyone chooses their path to self destruction, some choose to be a recluse, some choose skydiving, some choose "success" (higher rates of stress and heartattacks) some choose international travel as well, all are self destructive in some way
who are you to choose my path
(disclaimer, rhetorical question, i do not do drugs)

however few drugs users will use this argument, i feel in large part because most are in denial about the self destructive nature of abuse (in modern reality, use that is not objectively medically evaluated = abuse)

who could go along with this argument for softer drugs? drugs that do not create violence in their abusers
this might have an appeasing effect and reduce major drug usage (why use meth when you can get MJ cheaper and legally?)

i would, as a stipulation to such legalization, impose harsher punishments on those stealing to get drugs, legal or illegal. if you have trace amounts in your system at the time of the robbery, you are getting a major punishment
i would also like random drug tests for social programs like public housing and welfare
really i want these anyway, but am willing to make a trade to get them
anybody disagree


i don't care about marijuana.

what i do care about is s**t like acid,cocaine,heroine,meth, and crack. and no one, NO ONE has yet to show me how legalizing these drugs will in any way shape or form benefit society.

[mathurin]

The Comrade wrote: mathurin wrote:

i have the argument which i think will make sense to him, so lets see

everyone chooses their path to self destruction, some choose to be a recluse, some choose skydiving, some choose "success" (higher rates of stress and heartattacks) some choose international travel as well, all are self destructive in some way
who are you to choose my path
(disclaimer, rhetorical question, i do not do drugs)

however few drugs users will use this argument, i feel in large part because most are in denial about the self destructive nature of abuse (in modern reality, use that is not objectively medically evaluated = abuse)

who could go along with this argument for softer drugs? drugs that do not create violence in their abusers
this might have an appeasing effect and reduce major drug usage (why use meth when you can get MJ cheaper and legally?)

i would, as a stipulation to such legalization, impose harsher punishments on those stealing to get drugs, legal or illegal. if you have trace amounts in your system at the time of the robbery, you are getting a major punishment
i would also like random drug tests for social programs like public housing and welfare
really i want these anyway, but am willing to make a trade to get them
anybody disagree


i don't care about marijuana.

what i do care about is s**t like acid,cocaine,heroine,meth, and crack. and no one, NO ONE has yet to show me how legalizing these drugs will in any way shape or form benefit society.

if legalized only in highly toxic form it could kill off societies chaff



but thats never going to happen, so i agree with you there

[Malcolm Kyle]

The Comrade wrote: mathurin wrote:

i have the argument which i think will make sense to him, so lets see

everyone chooses their path to self destruction, some choose to be a recluse, some choose skydiving, some choose "success" (higher rates of stress and heartattacks) some choose international travel as well, all are self destructive in some way
who are you to choose my path
(disclaimer, rhetorical question, i do not do drugs)

however few drugs users will use this argument, i feel in large part because most are in denial about the self destructive nature of abuse (in modern reality, use that is not objectively medically evaluated = abuse)

who could go along with this argument for softer drugs? drugs that do not create violence in their abusers
this might have an appeasing effect and reduce major drug usage (why use meth when you can get MJ cheaper and legally?)

i would, as a stipulation to such legalization, impose harsher punishments on those stealing to get drugs, legal or illegal. if you have trace amounts in your system at the time of the robbery, you are getting a major punishment
i would also like random drug tests for social programs like public housing and welfare
really i want these anyway, but am willing to make a trade to get them
anybody disagree


i don't care about marijuana.

what i do care about is s**t like acid,cocaine,heroine,meth, and crack. and no one, NO ONE has yet to show me how legalizing these drugs will in any way shape or form benefit society.
We've supplied you with more than enough evidence to support our position so I doubt if it would make any difference if we showed you anymore. You seem to be in a permanent state of obtuseness. Anyway this is for anybody else who's still following this thread : It is Prohibition that creates the conditions which lead to a worsening of most of the problems we now see in society. Prohibition has put us all in harms way and serves only to provide a profitable market for criminals and terrorists.

Prohibition is strongly associated with: (1) increased violence (as in inner-city drive-by shootings or bombs in places like Colombia); (2) preventing the medical use of marijuana for desperately ill people; (3) keeping a small group of criminals extremely rich (it's a $300 billion industry); (4) the enormous costs of enforcement ($50 billion last year, including about $12 billion just to enforce marijuana laws alone); (5) the ruined communities and families because a breadwinner is sent to prison (at a cost of around $50 billion to house prisoners, plus an estimated $25,000 loss to the community per prisoner).

[The Comrade]

show me the positive affects on society, organized crime aside.


how will it positively affect households?
how will it positively effect education?
how will it positively effect projects?
how will it positively effect anything other then organized crime?

[Malcolm Kyle]

The Comrade wrote: show me the positive affects on society, organized crime aside.


how will it positively affect households?
how will it positively effect education?
how will it positively effect projects?
how will it positively effect anything other then organized crime?
Try reading it; that might work.
It is Prohibition that creates the conditions which lead to a worsening of most of the problems we now see in society. Prohibition has put us all in harms way and serves only to provide a profitable market for criminals and terrorists.

Prohibition is strongly associated with: (1) increased violence (as in inner-city drive-by shootings or bombs in places like Colombia); (2) preventing the medical use of marijuana for desperately ill people; (3) keeping a small group of criminals extremely rich (it's a $300 billion industry); (4) the enormous costs of enforcement ($50 billion last year, including about $12 billion just to enforce marijuana laws alone); (5) the ruined communities and families because a breadwinner is sent to prison (at a cost of around $50 billion to house prisoners, plus an estimated $25,000 loss to the community per prisoner).