It appears as if Ross A. Finlayson <email@example.com> wrote:
|If any citizen is given and is made to consume any substance against their
+ will or
|without their knowledge, then they have been poisoned.
The term "poisoned" often implies that the person has ingested a poison.
The definition you used above makes the concept "poisoned" a less meaningful
one. Or maybe you try to make a political statement on the badness of giving
a subject a substance without their consent?
By your definition above, if you administer any kind of medication to an
unconscious, you either poison that human, or that human lost its citizenship
with its consciousness, both rather uncommon standpoints.
I understand that humans in some jurisdictions temporarily lose their
rights when convicted for a crime, so in those jurisdictions you would
find it acceptable to perform that kind of re-programming, then?
Feel free to elaborate on your standpoint, in case you (dis)agree.
|There are many various behavior-modifying drugs and foods. For example,
|is known to induce endorphin release.
Chocolate contains a large mix of various substances, some of which do induce
endorphin release in some subjects.
|You mention that the drugs you mention have various effects, as well, various
|have differering effects. I'm not a pharmacologist.
The effect of almost any substance depends a lot on the dosage administered.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:27 MDT