Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't see the ethical problem as all that dramatic, other things being equal (i.e. the side effects of the antagonists are negligible).

Traders who don't want to waive the rush would be free to go into useful work. And individuals who are currently working as traders could be offered backoffice jobs.

I'm not advocating compulsion. But there is a public interest in preventing financial traders from hotdogging.

Besides, Nalmafene would presumably constitute an effective coke rehab therapy in its own right.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt št gmail dotcom) on Sun Jan 2nd, 2011 at 03:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But isn't the whole point of gambling and trading not the "buzz"?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Jan 2nd, 2011 at 04:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The bonuses are also part of the buzz.

If alcohol is a learned behaviour disorder, so is capitalism.

We're being run by monkeys pressing levers for a repeat hit.

And I mean that quite literally.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 2nd, 2011 at 04:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the monkeys are looked after by incompetent politicians who think their jobs depend on the number of levers pushed, who are in turn voted for by a majority of people with other levers called remote controls that allow them to almost instantly enter a hypnagogic state in which reality and fiction are impossibly entangled.

Mind you, we are all struggling to unravel.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 2nd, 2011 at 05:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see the ethical problem as all that dramatic, other things being equal (i.e. the side effects of the antagonists are negligible).

Negligible compared to what? Psychoactive drugs always have non-negligible side effects - at a bare minimum, they can cause their intended effect in people who don't need that effect. And a clinical trial that demonstrates that the side effects are less bad than addiction is far cry from demonstrating that it's harmless enough to be added to the general water supply on Manhatten.

I'm not advocating compulsion.

Because "take this drug or you lose your job" isn't compulsion? That is a very scary precedent to set.

But there is a public interest in preventing financial traders from hotdogging.

Of course. That is why we have financial regulators.

But enough public interest to justify violating the principle of informed consent? We don't even do that for the polio vaccine, and wiping out polio is a clear-cut case of public interest if I've ever seen one.

If you want traders to stop gambling with other people's money, you change the rules of operation of the stock exchange so they can't do it. You don't spike their lunch with psychopharmaca. We've been down that road before, and that's a really ugly neighbourhood.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jan 2nd, 2011 at 05:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure that nalmefene can be used in treating cocaine abuse. Coke has a dopaminergic effect which modulates neurotransmission, although it is also linked to the opioidergic system.

Nalmefene has a molecular shape that allows it 'block' neuronal endorphin receptors (like a fake key stuck in a lock that can't open the door). If endorphins enter the receptors of firing neurons, they promote new dendritic growth to neighbouring neurons that were also firing at the time of reception. That's how behaviour becomes hardwired - literally.

When neuronal receptors for endorphins are blocked, the process is 'reversed'. i.e. if the stimulation of a neuron by endorphin does not happen because of the blocking, then existing dendritic connections are weakened over time. That is essentially what the nalmefene treatment entails - 'forgetting' behaviour'. Although such behaviour can be quickly 'remembered' again by unblocked stimulation.

Whereas (if I understand it correctly) stimulated dopamine receptors modulate transmission across the synaptic gap. Which is a whole different kettle of students.

I don't know if dopaminergic antagonists have yet been discovered.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 2nd, 2011 at 05:33:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series