Guybrush
Dittohead
I’m not really questioning your questioning the definition of health. It’s more where some of you seem to be driving at; there’s always a disquieting undercurrent of pro-drugs bunk whenever health is discussed here.
It’s fairly common knowledge that, as with much everything else, our conception of health is deeply culturally rooted, the culture of our time of course being defined primarily (or thoroughly, depending on whom you ask) by capitalism. That does not mean, however, that everything is up in the air. Medical professionals can still give a reasonable estimation of which human bodies are more well-functioning than others, which substances are probably going to harm your bodily functions more than others, and so on, so unless we want to play the relativism game ad nauseam it sure looks to me like this isn’t remotely the moot issue you make it out to be. Again, I’m not saying that the common definition of health is irrefutable by any means, but if there is an observable difference in functionality between the body of a former drug addict and that of a straight-edge pole-vaulter, the latter’s body functioning better (no quotes), it’s reasonable to deem the pole-vaulter’s body healthier (no quotes).
Which is where common sense enters the picture. Common sense, as it relates to this matter, is not about swallowing the mainstream definition of health hook, line and sinker, but about making prudent estimations based on likelihood: if every doctor tells you that ricin will kill you, it probably will; if every doctor tells you that crack messes with your body in any number of ways, it probably does. Easy-peasy.
I would like to add that a few catch-as-catch-can google searches, bringing forth statistics on why this or that notion of what is a healthy body is doubtful, does not a forceful debunk make. It’s like global warming: the science is in.
It’s fairly common knowledge that, as with much everything else, our conception of health is deeply culturally rooted, the culture of our time of course being defined primarily (or thoroughly, depending on whom you ask) by capitalism. That does not mean, however, that everything is up in the air. Medical professionals can still give a reasonable estimation of which human bodies are more well-functioning than others, which substances are probably going to harm your bodily functions more than others, and so on, so unless we want to play the relativism game ad nauseam it sure looks to me like this isn’t remotely the moot issue you make it out to be. Again, I’m not saying that the common definition of health is irrefutable by any means, but if there is an observable difference in functionality between the body of a former drug addict and that of a straight-edge pole-vaulter, the latter’s body functioning better (no quotes), it’s reasonable to deem the pole-vaulter’s body healthier (no quotes).
Which is where common sense enters the picture. Common sense, as it relates to this matter, is not about swallowing the mainstream definition of health hook, line and sinker, but about making prudent estimations based on likelihood: if every doctor tells you that ricin will kill you, it probably will; if every doctor tells you that crack messes with your body in any number of ways, it probably does. Easy-peasy.
I would like to add that a few catch-as-catch-can google searches, bringing forth statistics on why this or that notion of what is a healthy body is doubtful, does not a forceful debunk make. It’s like global warming: the science is in.