Actually, the phrase "drug seeking behavior" doesn't denote anything in the world, per se...

In order to lose all your money to this scam, first you have to lose half of it. Oh and by the way you already lost half of it.

How about this: no one can say anything that isn't grounded in empirical observation, except for Wittgeinstein.

In the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein more or less lays out a position that any statement which does not directly link to an empirical observation is "nonsense". Of course, it wasn't hard to realize that most, or perhaps all, of the very book he had written would then have to be counted as nonsense. He got around this probably thus:

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

So in other words, no one is allowed to give nonsensical statements, starting the exact moment after they read Wittgenstein. A rather strange solution, to be sure, but what can you do I guess?

Remember kids, nothing is cooler than following your moral imperative.

According to Kant's moral philosophy, actions such as lying were not permissible because they could not be coherently "universalized". So if everyone lied all the time, it would undermine the very concept of lying, because no one would believe anything anyone said, making lying pointless. In addition, Kant believe that for an action to be moral, it had to be done out of a sense of duty. If you save someone from a burning building because you want a reward, or because you will be punished if you don't do it, you aren't doing anything moral - you must do it out of your moral duty to save them.

Philosophy is pointless because my philosophical opinions are correct.