perelgut (06/11/82)
When I originally submitted the articles on computer addiction to the news network, I had a particular discussion in mind. I have since been surprised and amused by the way things have gone. The discussion seems to center around a number of people who are incensed that they might be addicts, with the typical bunch who find the discussion not to their liking. There have been numerous fascinating contributions about what is addicition, and what is society's duty to protect itself from addicts of any sort. This has even extended into the perennial NORML arguments for marijuana, a topic in its own right. However, my original thesis is not so much "are we addicted", but what response should we take to the attitude society is taking that we are addicted, and if not the computer professional, then the child in the arcade. Look at the power of attitudes. Cigarettes and alcohol are much more damaging than marijuana has been shown to be and yet which of the above are legal. Drunk drivers should be charged with (attempted) murder if caught! The concept of a computer addict may well be "horseshit", but denying it will not stave off any ill effects should society deem us crazed lunatics. I am finding the discussion very interesting, let's keep it hot. --- steve perelgut --- --- decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!perelgut ---
mark (06/12/82)
For an interesting discussion on which drugs are harmful and which are legal, read "Licit and Illicit Drugs", by Consumers Union (the same people that do Consumer Reports). It costs $4 and can be ordered with the coupon in the back of any CR. (It's a paperback book - over an inch thick.) They take a view that I was quite surprised at. They come down very hard on three drugs: Alcohol, Nicotine (e.g. cigarettes) and Caffeine. On the other hand, they claim that certain drugs which are illegal and thought to be seriously harmful are not so bad. (Most people feel this way about Marijuana, but they lump Cocaine and Heroin in this category too!) The book is very thorough and covers many drugs, but is out of date (1972) so it doesn't cover certain modern drugs like PCP. CU shows lots and lots of serious research and is very scholarly in coming to these conclusions. I recommend it as must reading for anyone who takes drugs, or who has children of the appropriate age. In fact, such children probably ought to read it too - being informed is very important. I'm sure nearly everyone who reads this has been to high school and college in the last 20 years and knows what the attitudes on drugs are in these places, and realizes that you just can't ignore this issue and hope it will never come up. (I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has recently attended a private school, or who has a drug-age child in such a school, such as a church school, as to whether such things come up there as well as public schools, and if the age bracket is different.) Also, I have recently heard (Ann Landers? I'm not sure where) that recent evidence has shown real problems for regular marijuana users that makes it look much worse than tobacco. I'd be interested to know if this was just that year's quota of unscientific scare stories to keep it from being legalized, or if there has been real, reproduced, accepted data that shows real problems. I forget the nature of the problem - reproductive or genetic damage or some such thing, I think. Mark
kevin (06/13/82)
I'd like to remind everyone that virtually any major accomplishment or advance
in science and in our society today is made as the result of a concentrated
effort on the part of people who are "addicts" in their field. In order to
make advances in anything, whether art, science, or anything in between, one
must devote oneself 110% to accomplishing that objective.
There have been a few men in history who were able to excel in many diverse
efforts (e.g., Leonardo da Vinci), but the vast majority of people who are
noted for making major advancements in knowledge were deeply immersed in their
fields; many were thought of as quite eccentric at the time...
Kevin Sandersbcw (06/13/82)
Re: Refresh on addiction discussion
From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
The current drug laws mentioned by cbosgd!mark are a classic example
of governmental stupidity. There is abundant evidence that excessive
alcohol causes quite a bit of trouble, and a lot more than just the
liver problems which are "common knowledge;" things like cancer and
heart disease are also accelerated. (this doesn't happen -- at least
to a significant degree -- except at fairly high levels -- say a couple
of "hard" drinks or more a day). Similarly, there is considerable
evidence that tobacco (not so much nicotine -- it's mostly the tars and
contaminants; pure tobacco is actually quite a bit better than what
you're likely to get out of the tobacco firms) causes significant
systemic problems.
I'd be quite surprised, given the usual method of taking the drug, if
marijuana were benign. Since much of the problem with tobacco is in
the tars and contaminants (such as dirt, etc), and since burnt marijuana
is going to have these same constituents, it will likely have many of
the same problems. The fact that users usually don't take as much of
the marijuana as they do of tobacco is largely offset by the fact that
marijuana users typically inhale much more deeply.
>From what I know of the pharmacological effects of cocaine and heroin,
it appears that they are probably *less* dangerous than large amounts
of alcohol, tobacco, and (speculated) marijuana, assuming that they
are sufficiently pure (not what you'd likely find on the streets).
Even so, heroin is likely to make it difficult for its user to function
in society, given its tendency to monopolize its user's time because
of its physical addiction.
The effects of caffeine are fairly highly disputed. On the one hand,
the substance is highly mutagenic in prokaryotic organisms (bacteria
and blue-green algae), but on the other hand there have never been
any such effects reliably demonstrated in eukaryotic organisms (higher
organisms including all multicellular organisms). The stuff is in
fact so poisonous to bacteria that caffeine makes a reasonable anti-
biotic. Most of the problems reported with caffeine have been with
sources which have other substances as well; for example, the roasting
of coffee beans generates tars not too unlike the tobacco tars. These
do not appear too significant except in grossly excessive quantities
in humans.
All of this ignores the issue of whether it is any of the government's
business what recreational drugs people use. Since the government
sanctions the use of alcohol and tobacco (and even subsidizes them
heavily), it's position from a moral standpoint is at best hypocritical,
the more so because these drugs are the most demonstrably dangerous of
the pharmacopoeia. It appears that the government tries to ban all of
the "non-approved" drugs not for their merit or lack thereof but because
the businesses involved (the alcohol industry especially) are afraid
that it would impact their sales; coupled with some Moral Majority
lobbying which would like to bring back Prohibition (if it could only
be politically arranged).
No, I don't use many drugs -- caffeine and a little alcohol excepted --
but that's a personal choice and I see no reason why the government
should have *any* say in this matter at all. Government officials
however like to produce more legislation -- it makes them feel
important and as if they're actually *doing* something. The sooner
we realize that we can't trust government any farther than we can
throw it, the better for all of us.
Bruce C. Wright @ Duke Universitypcmcgeer (06/14/82)
This point has generated far more discussion than any I have seen on the net, and I have weighed in several times already. I still don't believe in computer addiction, and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an "addict", closet or otherwise, myself. However, stipulating for the sake of argument that such wacked-out creatures exist outside of the fertile imaginations of Weizenbaum and Sterling, I would still remind *everyone* of G. K. Chesterton's dictum that "freedom is the right to be our own potty (or, I suppose, addicted) little selves" It's time for the friends of Liberty to speak out! If someone calls you a computer addict, chain yourself to your terminal and tell him to stuff it.
stuart (06/14/82)
Kevin Sanders's comments about the kind of people responsible for great achievements remind me of the characters in Ayn Rand's novels (and of Ayn Rand) The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. If any 'computer-intense' people want inspiration and confirmation of the virtue of their so-called 'addiction', I strongly suggest reading either of these books. Her non-fiction works are even more potent.
ARPAVAX:CAD:ESVAX:Cory:cc-18 (06/15/82)
Amen to the comment about Rand's books (Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead). They are definitely the best moral justification for individualism, reason, and capitalism ever written. I suggest you start with Fountainhead. Michael Chastain ucbvax!Cory:cc-18 (UUCP) Cory.cc-18@Berkeley (ARPA)
burt (06/15/82)
Kevin Sanders says that most progress has been made by people who were addicts in their fields. It seems to me that progress is made by people who are fascinated with the acquisition of knowledge, and happen to be good at acquiring knowledge in a particular field. It is not made by kids who have lost sight of "reality" in the pursuit of computer games. Burt Patkau
wagner (06/15/82)
Re: Comments on Ayn Rand I found her books unreadable, full of flat characters who were unbelievably unbelievable. I gagged after 40 pages of Anthem (which some people tell me is her worst book, so maybe I should try again). Michael Wagner UTCS
woods@sri-unix (06/18/82)
I have two things to add to this discussion:
1) It is clear to me that making "harmful" drugs illegal is not the way to go.
The problems are, firstly, who gets to define harmful? And secondly, it doesn't
stop people from doing them! I'll wager there isn't anyone on the net who
doesn't at least themselves or have a friend who occasionally likes to smoke
pot, even though it is illegal. I think the government should market these
controlled substances instead of letting the Mafia make all the money. That
way they will even know who all the abusers are, because they will know who is
buying how much! Then the people who want to indulge in recreational use of
drugs will be free to do so without making themselves into felons, and those
who might otherwise tend to abuse a given drug will be discouraged, because
(supposedly) profit is no longer the sole motivation of the seller. I am
convinced that dealer attitude is at least partially responsible for the
large amount of drug abuse in this country. Very few dealers (and this includes
liquor store owners) will refuse to sell to someone who obviously is abusing
the drug, because addicts mean steady costumers. As long as many drugs are
only available on the Black Market, the government has little or no control
over the use of these drugs. HOw long are we going to live in the Dark Ages?
Let's make these illegal substances into controlled substances and divert
all that money away from a clearly undesirable influence (organized crime).
2) I do not believe that the government has the right to protect a person from
him/herself. All the evidence pointing to the harmful effects of cocaine, pot,
cigarettes, etc. only shows harmful effects on the user! Certainly some
activities (such as driving) must be prohibited while under the influence
of drugs, but just because there IS some evidence that heavy marijuana use
can lead to learning deficiencies is no excuse to make us into criminals.
I think education (as Mark Horton sort of suggested) can do far more good
in curbing drug abuse than legislation. Making something illegal is the fastest
way to ensure that teenagers will want to try it. I think education fosters
a spirit of cooperation, and laws create an atmosphere of opposition.
How long are we going to live in the Dark Ages?
GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods)