[xpe]

You say some things that make sense to me, but then you use the phrase “waging war”…

> FDA, for example, which is currently waging war on ADHD patients via the artificial Adderall shortage

Why do you choose this loaded language? This does not build credibility in my eyes. War means something, and it not that.

[xpe]

Sorry for the typo. I meant "War means something, and it is not that". By "that" I mean the above claim that what the FDA is doing (or not doing) is some kind of war.

I don't mean to split hairs nor imply that I alone get to decide what words mean. But I do have good reasons to suggest that words matter and that we should pay attention to them.

I am saying that rational people seeking truth strive not to use phrases "waging war" in a spirit of rationally discussing an issue. The way it is used above doesn't shine light on the core issue. The phrase invites tribalism and gut reactions rather than reason.

At the very least, such a phrase (1) presumes intention; and (2) assigns blame. These are two additional claims beyond the claim of harm to people with ADHD. I think one can make a decent argument about how agencies with too much authority can cause harm without invoking the war metaphor. Invoking that metaphor makes it harder to discuss the issues that seems to be driving this (interesting) discussion. I would frame that issue broadly as: (A) To what degree do agencies have legal and rational authority to clarify ambiguous laws? (B) Given what we know about human nature and organizations, what are some possible downstream outcomes?

Again, I'm making the case that a sentence like "But people have different opinions", when offered in the sense of e.g. "and that's all we can really say about that" is a disservice to understanding. As I see it, we have much necessary work to do that has nothing to do with pointing to differences of opinion. I think we need more substantive truth-seeking. If we engage in that fully, yes, differences of opinion will remain, but they will likely be applied to more nuanced aspects of the issue. This would be a good thing. It would help us talk in clearer ways.

I hope you can see that I am not dismissing rational claims of harm. I am instead expressing concern about the rhetoric used.

If you find yourself disagreeing with me, it might help to know that (i) I generally push back against moral relativism. Also (ii) I don't assign moral worth to mere opinions. I assign moral worth to people and their well-being, not merely to any and all electrochemical fluctuations that we call thoughts and beliefs. To summarize, I respect the ability of people to have opinions, but I don't give those opinions some kind of fundamental moral weight.

Why? Many such opinions are unconnected with reality. Sometimes, they don't even make sense _for them_; i.e. for their own self-interest! Moreover, enlightened people who pay attention to their own thoughts can notice this -- it is not something I have to impose on them.

[adastra22]

I didn’t choose that language. The “war on drugs” is the DEA’s own marketing.

[xpe]

I grant that the DEA deserves scrutiny for its handling of the Adderall manufacturers. [1]

[1] https://reason.com/2024/02/26/dea-shuts-down-drug-factory-ev...

Stepping back (hopefully to clear the air), I hope you can see this: it is hard for others to tell when you are using a phrase sarcastically to criticize some other party's usage of the same phrase.

Aside: unfortunately, the use of "war" as in "war on drugs" often corresponds with armed conflict... though to my knowledge, this is not a recognized problem with amphetamine mixed salts.

[adastra22]

War on Drugs.

War on Poverty.

War on Cancer.

America just loves war metaphors. I think you're reading too much into it.

https://www.hoover.org/research/rise-war-metaphor-public-pol...

[xpe]

I’m aware. I am hoping to persuade it is better to not abuse the word as well. How we choose to frame things can help promote useful conversation or hinder it.

I’m detecting an argument that “other people muddle words, so I can too”. Yikes. Can ain’t the same thing as should.

Maybe I should be more specific: The words you wrote can be easily read as a crackpot suggestion that the FDA is seeking to actively harm people with ADHD. (I write this now after having reread the source comment.)

Cancer doesn’t know we are at war with it; neither does poverty. There is no one we can kill to solve these problems. Instead, hopefully, we are seeking understanding of science and human nature so that we can reduce these problems.

Anyhow, I can’t tell if any of my main logical arguments have gotten through, which is a symptom of a bad conversation in my eyes at least. I don’t view this as a debate —- rather as a process of understanding.