Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Objectivism against drugs?

Rate this topic


goldmonkee

Recommended Posts

What I am saying is that context is key, that you and Inspector have dropped it,

Have I? Don't lump me in with him. Please show where I have dropped context. Also note my warning about context in my post. Are you confusing me with someone else?

To those seemingly having Ayn Rand think for them: Does the use of any drug for anything other than medical purposes necessarily imply the existence of a desire to escape reality?

How does it seem that I have Ayn Rand doing my thinking for me? Are you hard of reading? :dough: Re-read the bold parts below:

While, of course, context is king and there can be an acceptable context (such as someone in pain from a terrible disease or something), her statement and its tone are a clear condemnation of the "recreational" use of mind-altering drugs, addictive or not. I think this opinion can be clearly derived from Objectivism via the importance of maintaining a clear focus and rational purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

... I'd advise against using phrases like 'altered states of consciousness', because this seems to imply that there is one 'normal' way of perceiving (and thinking about) the world which is disrupted while under the influence of drugs....
In the sense in which "drugs" is being used in this thread, their consciousness-altering nature is of essence. And yes, a severely drunk driver does perceive reality wrongly, not just differently. Yes, someone in a severely bad mood may also perceive reality wrongly. What does that prove?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that context is key, that you and Inspector have dropped it, and that you should go back and read all the posts here, especially those of BurgessLau and DavidOdden, who display consistently good thinking on this forum (much better than myself), and begin to think for yourself. And if anyone can show that something I said is wrong, rationally show it, then I welcome that.

Or especially mine. My thinking is consistently good as well. :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'd have an exceptionally difficult time coming up with a reasonable scientific experiment to test the hypothesis that a person on ecstacy or speed is somehow cognitively impaired compared to normal humans.

Do you lack common sense? Have you ever been sober in the presence of someone who was high/drunk/stoned/tripping? From the countless examples that spring to mind, I recall a news story about a couple that got high on crystal meth and ended up dead in a field when the sleep impairment got them hallucinating and disoriented. The news story had their 911 call from their cell phones playing and they were trying to talk to cows, which they couldn't tell weren't people.

I can't believe in this day and age that people are still under the delusion that drugs "alter" consciousness... as if they simply changed it to something different; perhaps superior. Every drug mentioned doesn't alter consciousness; they destroy it. The extent/duration of the destruction depends on the drug and the dose.

With the cornucopia of scientific evidence that "recreational" drugs destroy consciousness, the burden of proof is on YOU, Hal, to show how they don't.

The use of recreational drugs before the point of losing consciousness causes, not mindlessness, but an altered state of consciousness. If it resulted in mindlessness, the use of recreational drugs (LSD, marijuana, shrooms, or whatever else) would not result in art, literature, or science going on.

I have yet to see an example of good art or literature that resulted from drug use. Any example I've seen could easily have happened IN SPITE OF drug use, and not because of it. Your example of the scientist is the FIRST and ONLY example of science of any sort (good, bad) resulting from drug use and I have to tell you I am EXTREMELY skeptical of it.

Where I come from, there isn't any question at all that "recreational" drugs result in mindlessness. This is a bit like asking me to prove that the sky is blue... :dough:

And yes, a severely drunk driver does perceive reality wrongly, not just differently.

Thank God (to use an expression) someone else here seems to be aware of this plain and simple fact. I was starting to worry...

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the countless examples that spring to mind, I recall a news story about a couple that got high on crystal meth and ended up dead in a field when the sleep impairment got them hallucinating and disoriented. The news story had their 911 call from their cell phones playing and they were trying to talk to cows, which they couldn't tell weren't people.

Inspector, I can't help that the media hypes stories, that the majority of people who use drugs mis-use them, or that they are trying to escape from unhappy lives, or that they are idiots and overdose, OR that they don't choose wisely between a non-addictive drug vs. addictive, or that they don't place themselves in a safe situation before using them.

None of us on this forum are advocating the use of addictive drugs or those with serious health effects, such as meth, or their irresponsible use. I cannot even think of "safe drugs" to use except marijuana or mushrooms. Anyone?

However, let's get back to the main question, please. Is the use of recreational drugs under ANY circumstances, for non-medical recreational purposes, necessarily immoral? Does anyone answer yes to this question, and why?

softwareNerd, I perceive reality wrongly when I use 3D glasses. What I am asking is whether a wrong (but fun) perception of reality is necessarily immoral, specifically when one adequately prepares for this wrong perception by ensuring that the use of a drug causing it will not harm oneself or others by overdosing, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.? Also, the other conditions that I specified above apply: that the use is not to escape from some hurtful or otherwise unpleasant aspect of reality, and that the use is not a habit. It is simply to enjoy the altered perception of reality that is taking place, whether is be visual alterations of objects or auditory alterations of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of us on this forum are advocating the use of addictive drugs or those with serious health effects, such as meth, or their irresponsible use. I cannot even think of "safe drugs" to use except marijuana or mushrooms. Anyone?

I don't think that mushrooms, being a hallucinogen, can be considered "safe." Who's to say that a man won't bash his skull in against the wall because he thinks it's a fluffy pillow that wants hugs?

Also, with marijuana, I have been told that the nature of THC is such that it must build up in the system to have any effect (and also takes a while to leave the system, which is why it can be tested for even weeks after the last dose). Thus, a person can't get "high" from just one joint (claims to the contrary being placebo). There is no such thing as a "casual" marijuana user, if that is true, since they must be chronically using to even get "high" at all (and, thus, addicted... not that it's necessarily hard to quit from what I hear).

All forms of sport, entertainment, and recreation that I know of serve some purpose or exercise some function that can be tied in some way to a man's survival qua man. I can think of positive values involved in skydiving, jet skiing, drag racing, baseball, crochet, watching TV, etc, etc.

Recreational drugs, on the other hand, aren't connected in any way; they're just a chemical stimulant to the pleasure-centers of the brain. I don't see how this can validly be called "fun," much less moral. Pleasure, by itself, is not moral.

Let me pose the question: what life-affirming value is served by becoming intoxicated for recreational purposes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, with marijuana, I have been told that the nature of THC is such that it must build up in the system to have any effect (and also takes a while to leave the system, which is why it can be tested for even weeks after the last dose). Thus, a person can't get "high" from just one joint (claims to the contrary being placebo).

I can attest to the fact that this is wrong. Marijuana gets you high and does so quickly, especially if you smoke so called "hash", a more concentrated form. You don't need any prior usage. My experience has been that marijuana is mild in comparison to alcohol if the alcohol is taken to make you intoxicated.

However, I believe there is a long term deleterious effect if you smoke marijuana continuously. People who use it all the time are often referred to as "burn outs", because it seems to dull the mind a bit. Note, this isn't a scientific assessment, this is only a personal observation of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus you can get high from secondary smoke. In college I lived in a house with two pot heads. I would get buzzed from inhaling the smoke.

As I said, this can be attributed to the "placebo effect." I don't have that info on extremely good authority, so I'd be interested to see if there have been any studies that show the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put the 'Happy, self-confident men do not seek to get "stoned"' quote in context, in particular to determine whether this states a principle of Objectivist philosophy, would you (in particularly those who take that quote as meaning that Objectivism is philosophically opposed to taking any consciousness-altering drugs) also conclude that Objectivism is opposed to homosexuality. The basis for that conclusion would be her statement in the 1971 Ford Hall lecture "Moratorium on Brains" in answer to the question "This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?". She replied "Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral...Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting". Similarly, in the January 1968 McCalls, Ayn Rand stated "I would not want to be president and would not vote for a woman president. A woman cannot reasonably want to be a commander-in-chief," and follows up in The Objectivist dated December 1968 saying "For a woman to seek or desire the presidency is, in fact, so terrible a prospect of spiritual self-immolation that the woman who would seek it is psychologically unworthy of the job". Should we conclude from that that Objectivist philosophy is opposed to having a female president? (I think, actually, that it might be hard to avoid that conclusion).

Her quote does not indicate any exceptions whatsoever, and I think it is obvious that there are exceptions, where getting "stoned" does have a legitimate function in one's life (don't try this at home!). One straightforward example is seeking to get stinking drunk in a controlled scientific experiment, to objectively determine the effect of brain pickling on language production and comprehension (thus working to satisfy the Daubert standard in judging the condition of an allegedly drunk boat captain).

Happy, self-confident men do not seek to avoid their work; should we conclude that they always want to be on the job and should never take vacations where they avoid work? The part that puzzles me here is that it's usually not too hard to identify the fundamental philosophical principles from which Rand's statements derive, but in this case it isn't clear to me (perhaps because I don't have the tape so I don't know the full context of what she is saying).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would you (in particularly those who take that quote as meaning that Objectivism is philosophically opposed to taking any consciousness-altering drugs)

David, please read what I wrote more carefully. I don't take that quote to mean that Objectivism is philosophically opposed to taking consciousness destroying drugs. (I refuse to use the apologist euphamism "altering") As I said,

I think this opinion can be clearly derived from Objectivism

Why would I state that it was an opinion, but that it could clearly be derived from Objectivism if I wasn't at once acknowledging that it was, as stated, an opinion, and also stating that it was (not entirely due to that quote) able to be derived from Objectivism.

As a side question, in the quest to determine whether a statement of Ayn Rand's is philosophic or non-philosophic, does her use of the terms "evil," "moral," "morally," and "errors," necessarily imply a philosophic opinion? I would think that they do. Or were her Ford Hall comments "philosophic" in nature, but simply not a part of Objectivism? Is there any official statement from Dr. Peikoff on the meaning or scope of those statements? Reading the Ford Hall quote again raises a few doubts in my mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't take that quote to mean that Objectivism is philosophically opposed to taking consciousness destroying drugs. (I refuse to use the apologist euphamism "altering")
I appreciate the clarification -- it is clear that you did not explicitly say that opposition to use of stuff is a philosophic principle of Objectivism, and I entirely agree that it isn't. Your answer was directed at Kyle's "can't remember what Rand said" comment and the quote you gave does address that specific issue. That was not the point of my post. The point was that this is an instance of deriving a concrete conclusion applicable in a limited context (not knowing the whole lecture, it's hard for me to say what that whole context is). There are rare contexts where drugs are good, just as there are rare contexts where de-focusing for a moment and leaving the job can be good. Your statement in post 38 "Pleasure, by itself, is not moral" is correct: moral evaluation is possible only in terms of a purpose, such as living. If a joint provides you with a perceptual experience that enhances your understanding of visual perception and if understanding visual perception is important to your life, you should have a joint. One is sufficient.

The initial issue at the root of this thread is the "why" question. The discussion has wandered to questions of addictiveness (off the table from the first post!), danger to others (answered definitively, so let's move on), faking reality, death from overdose, and what the heck is a drug (I like Burgess's answer but maybe others aren't satisfied -- I think if you assume his definition, you cannot possibly hold that drugs are uniformly evil). I think it's always a mistake to ask why something is true if it isn't a clear fact that it is true. But be that as it may, I have seen excellent specific reasons given why it is true in specific contexts: if driving; if it's addictive; if you're doing it to evade some problem in your life. I have not yet to see a good answer that implies that it is always bad.

I personally have no interest in hemp weed or tobacco weed and I will not tolerate the fumes of either in my presence. I also have no personal interest in Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Oxycontin, Valium, Stelazine or any of that other garbage: however, I recognise that some people do need their consciousness altered (to use the dreaded euphemism, though I could say "destroyed" if that would make it clearer). It is tragic,

Now as for Mozart and dope, I can't imagine anything less compatible. Pink Floyd, especially "Wish You Were Here", really only makes sense if you're stoned, and even then, it doesn't. It's all about context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, thanks for the reply. I'm sorry if I jumped down your throat a little bit... I felt as though I were surrounded by intoxication-advocates where you were just saying that [unspecified drugs] don't have to be bad in every single last context (though it is indeed a rare one where they aren't, and it is a matter of debate even then!) As I said before, context is king.

I've just seen it happen too many times that someone takes that truth -- that there might exist a context where an intoxicant is a good thing -- and use it to justify being a stoner. (to which I am vehemently opposed)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now as for Mozart and dope, I can't imagine anything less compatible. Pink Floyd, especially "Wish You Were Here", really only makes sense if you're stoned, and even then, it doesn't. It's all about context.

I assume you've done enough dope to make this judgement, or listened to enough music on dope. Either way, this is still a personal assessment.

...you were just saying that [unspecified drugs] don't have to be bad in every single last context (though it is indeed a rare one where they aren't, and it is a matter of debate even then!)

I'll be the first to agree that such a context is a somewhat rare occasion, and it is always a matter of debate; that's the point of being objective. However, I think you are a bit too reluctant to concede that a rational, intelligent, grounded-in-reality type of person can use a lot of drugs and still be within the realm of morality, or you are too focused on the lack of this type of individual. I don't want to make any assumptions, but people with your type of argument often strike me as having a hard time relinquishing the societal and/or personal prejudice that plagues the drug issue.

I've just seen it happen too many times that someone takes that truth...and use it to justify being a stoner. (to which I am vehemently opposed)

You ought to be comfortable with the fact that no one can justify anything that is unjustifiable; one can only attempt to do so through rationalization (which ought to be replaced with a different word, since the process of rationalization often has nothing to do with rationality).

What are the defining characteristics of a stoner, anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I think you are a bit too reluctant to concede that a rational, intelligent, grounded-in-reality type of person can use a lot of drugs and still be within the realm of morality, or you are too focused on the lack of this type of individual.

I never conceded, even reluctantly, that a person can use "a lot" of drugs (of this kind) and still be within the realm of morality. Intoxication is, as a general rule, BAD.

You ought to be comfortable with the fact that no one can justify anything that is unjustifiable

Right, sorry. The phrase I should have used is "attempt to justify..."

What are the defining characteristics of a stoner, anyway?

Well, I'm assuming we've all met the sort in school or saw a movie such as hald baked, or anything involving Cheech and Chong (or Chong's character on that 70's show)... I'd say that the defining characteristics are frequent use of "mellow" type drugs such as marijuana that have rendered the mind semi-functional (or worse). In this case, I used it as a pejorative to describe people who aren't quite of that level. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses these kinds of drugs is a loser and the impetus is on them to provide the weird and complicated context in which says otherwise.

As for your comments on the culture, I'd say that you're sadly mistaken about what messages "the culture" is putting out about drugs. It's quite the opposite of what you're positing, in fact. Drugs are almost universally lauded and drug users are whitewashed and glorified. Even when the consequences are mentioned, it's in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" fashion.

It's sick.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never conceded, even reluctantly, that a person can use "a lot" of drugs (of this kind) and still be within the realm of morality.

That is exactly the problem.

In this case, I used it as a pejorative to describe people who aren't quite of that level. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses these kinds of drugs is a loser and the impetus is on them to provide the weird and complicated context in which says otherwise.

I must say, I know some people who use "these kinds of drugs" (a couple who do so frequently) who do not even begin to drift in that direction, let alone come even remotely close to that level, myself included (granted, I know more that do, but I am never really inclined to talk about people who fit the stereotype). I guess we don't qualify as stoners. We have no obligation to provide any "weird and complicated" context which refutes your position. We could, but you won't hear it anyway. No, we will simply choose not to go back and forth with someone who does not have the firsthand experience or ability to reason to understand the complexities of this issue, and we will be happier for not wasting our valuable time in this fashion: :P

As for your comments on the culture, I'd say that you're sadly mistaken about what messages "the culture" is putting out about drugs. It's quite the opposite of what you're positing, in fact. Drugs are almost universally lauded and drug users are whitewashed and glorified. Even when the consequences are mentioned, it's in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" fashion.
Whitewashed and glorified? "Wink wink, nudge nudge?" I dunno man, this depends entirely upon the circles and the company therein (Ahem, context?). As for the abstraction "culture," perhaps you'd like to expound on the defining characteristics of our "culture."

It's sick.

Damn right it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread was started because I read in another thread that Objectivists were against drugs and nobody disagreed. So I assumed general acceptance of the stance. And then I started thinking: Why? (My favourite question by the way) Why be against recreational drug use? To be specific, with drugs I mean Cannabis, LSD, cocaine etc. My emphasis, here will be cannabis however, since this is something I consider harmless if taken with consideration. :D

There is no "blanket" objection to drugs when one does not harm another in any way. What you do to your own body is your business. All drugs--and even non-drugs--take their toll eventually. I was a smoker for fifty years and now I have trouble breathing. :dough:

As for cannabis, I had an experience that put me right off it. My family along with one other family had gone to the lakeshore for an afternoon. We, adults were lounging on the beach while our children played in the water. The other chap offered me a "toke" which I had fortunately refused because when he laughingly told me to look at my son trying to swim, I immediately saw that the child was floundering--NOT SWIMMING--and needed immediate help. From what I have seen over the years, I am sure that if I had been "under the influence", my son would have drowned.

But, everything aside, the choice is yours. I only hope that no one else suffers from your actions, now or fifty years down the road.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The external world, the atoms swirling about, do not care what you do. The world is nuetral, it butchers and it hugs in accordance with the laws of physics.

Objectivism points out that there exists a world externalized from the individual, and that within the parameters of human interaction, that it is moral to free men from other men. That one should not sacrifice himself to others, or anyone to him.

Objectivism is a philosophy. It is an idea, a tool. Being an Objectivist does not mean that you are Objectivism: it is only a tool in your hand.

Is using drugs in your best interest? Weigh the pros and cons. Don't obey something just because someone who claims to be an Objectivist says it's wrong, BUT THINK FOR YOURSELF, USING YOUR RATIONAL MIND!

Whatever you choose, remember deep down that the laws of physics, not all of which humans yet know, determine Right and Wrong.

If you wish to smoke Marijuana, then do so.. I hope it makes you happy. But I also won't care if you suffer fir your choice.

Think for yourself, do not be an Objectivist Collectvist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have something to say about the positive effects of "mind-altering". Do you remember the scene in 'The Shawnshank Redemption' when Dufresne switched on Mozart (without dope :ninja: ). He said that that music was necessary because this reminded him that "there are places in the world that are still beautiful."

I think that any "mind-altering" thing (be it music, paintings, movies, drugs, whatever ...) that has that effect is a good thing. (Given, of course, that you don't get addicted)

And since that drug use of mine had such a positive effect (very much like the one Dufresne referred to), I would conclude that this very act of taking it was profoundly moral since it showed me that life in general can be worth living.

I am extremely ignorant in regard to art and also in regard to Objectivist Aesthetics, but unless Art makes us feel good, unless it shows us that life is worth living, what good is it? Art is precisely that: Mind-altering. It changes your perception of the world. It gives you a new perspective or allows you (or better: helps you) to keep the one you already have. What else do we have art for? And why is there something like recreation at all? ... if not for that very purpose.

And all this 'drug use show's you're a worthless bum'-talk is nothing but ignorant puritanistic garbage. Taking drugs has the same moral position as watching a movie. (Always under the condition of non-addictiveness and care in use)

Edited by Felix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all this 'drug use show's you're a worthless bum'-talk is nothing but ignorant puritanistic garbage. Taking drugs has the same moral position as watching a movie. (Always under the condition of non-addictiveness and care in use)

It is your statement that is garbage. And don't call me a puritan or I will call you a filthy hippie. If you can't see the difference between enjoying beautiful art and getting stoned then you deserve that label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...