When I was in middle school, one of our teachers gave us a “don’t do drugs” talk.

Somebody asked him whether he had ever used drugs himself. He replied something along the lines of:

I’m not going to answer that question, because it's one that I can only lose.

Either I say yes, and you can conclude that drugs aren’t so bad since I’m fine now.

Or I say no, and you can conclude that since I haven’t tried them, I don’t know what I’m talking about.

That stuck in my mind. I couldn’t fault the logic in what he said. But something about it still felt off.

Surely it can’t be that any answer to a question makes it less likely for drugs to be bad?[1]

Presumably it's possible for drugs to really be bad. And if we are in a world where that is true... you need to be able to conclude that, somehow. He had concluded that somehow.

There was also the question of, if any answer should update us against believing that drugs are bad, how does telling us that help? If he gives us the logic of why we’d update against him anyway, shouldn’t [...]

The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.