Is Objectivism against drugs?

[stephen_speicher]

By the way...how dare you attack Stephen. He is one of the most rational people I have ever met on the internet or otherwise....anyone who attacks him better do a serious amount of thought and intergration before hand.

Sorry, I missed this before. Thank you, Megan. And you, and the rest of us, deserve better than to be subjected to the likes of that creature.

[BigDaddySexMachine]

Didn't notice this the first time. Violence helps to celebrate life?! If you find the right bastard? I know things like you, I work in a sports bar. There are always kids on Friday night that go out looking to topple someone for the shear "celebration" of it.

Even more than the glorification of drugs, violence as pleasure surely bars you from any sort of rational consideration. You believe in the pleasure of manipulating your own mind and then indulge in the irrational "joy" of knocking someone out of theirs with your fists.

You are precisely the thug that is the exact opposite of any Objectivist principle or even the rudiments of normal civilization.

That parenthetical remark was a joke. Obviously. I'm amazed you draw such an extensive and damning portrait of my character based on a throw-away line. And your speculation on how I behave at bars is hardly appropriate or accurate.

[BigDaddySexMachine]

This post promoted patently false statements concerning Ayn Rand's position on drug use.

NIJamesHughes

Edited December 6, 2004 by NIJamesHughes

[McGroarty]

You have been offered several rational reasons why using drugs can be bad. One of them was that it impairs your ability to act rationally, which is of primary importance to an Objectivist.

Looking back through the threads you've participated in, you will find that people started to go off on you when you glossed over explanations and then made the claim that no explanation had been given, such as you've done above. Please consider rereading the thread. If you find explanations you do not understand, feel free to ask questions. If you find explanations you disagree with, challenge people on them rationally, not with an appeal to emotions. I promise you will benefit significantly by doing this.

[The Durande]

Ultimately, I think it's safe to say, drugs and sex are good. Immensely so. Ayn Rand thought so. All her fictive heroes partook liberally. And in her personal life she championed cigarettes and alcohol.

Galt is portrayed as having sex w/one woman, for all we know, ever.

ditto for Francisco

Rearden - his wife, then dagny

Roark - Dominique

Kira - leo and andrei

not in any case without love.

The use of the word "partook" implies "casually"

None of them took mind-altering drugs. Ever. Don't try to say that cigarettes are mind-altering. If they had a drink at some party in any of the books, it wasn't to the point of drunkenness except for the case of Leo. He was trapped in Russia! It was also noted in his first meeting w/Kira that it was NOT his habit to drink. Cigarettes and occasional alcoholic beverages aren't "taking drugs." Don't put them on a par w/marijuana and cocaine.

She never "championed" cigarettes and alcohol in her personal life. If one makes references to enjoying holding the fire of a cigarette in one's hand, or the enjoyment of a new, exotic drink, that is not "championing."

What you have said above amounts to a bunch of lies. Not just any lies, but about Ayn Rand. You do not deserve to exist in the same universe in which she once did, much less come to a forum that is dedicated to her acheivement.

Cowards like you thrive on the anonimity offerered here. You are like a vandal with a can of spray paint. Nothing to offer but destruction. Please leave us out of your misery.

[Thoyd Loki]

That parenthetical remark was a joke. Obviously. I'm amazed you draw such an extensive and damning portrait of my character based on a throw-away line. And your speculation on how I behave at bars is hardly appropriate or accurate.

It was not a parenthetical remark in your post, only the part about finding the right bastard was. Violence was listed as the serious number three of your list of "pleasures". After that, I can speculate what I want.

Ultimately, I think it's safe to say, drugs and sex are good. Immensely so. Ayn Rand thought so. All her fictive heroes partook liberally. And in her personal life she championed cigarettes and alcohol. The only problem is...nowadays it makes more sense rationally to indulge in, and celebrate with, marijuana and cocaine, for the reasons already outlined. With decent rationality and in Greek moderation, these things can be pleasurable indeed. Any puritanesque persiflage to the contrary we can ignore.

Name one instance where an Ayn Rand hero partook liberally in drugs, and the kind of sex you champion. Where is this championing of alcohol and cigarettes that you talk about? Are you going to to equate cigarettes with pot? LSD to a glass of wine? Crack to Merlot? A cup of coffee to meth perhaps?

Go ahead and indulge yourself all you want. But please stop making an ass of yourself trying to make others think you're justified in your evasions.

What do you need these people for? Indulge.

[Nullifidian]

What is the difference between humans and other animals?  Did evolution program us to take drugs?

From a biological perspective there is very little difference between us and them. On a objective reality level we are totally different.

Yes, evolution has programmed our brain chemistry to react to a number of outside stimuli once it is entered into our blood stream. We have specific centers of the brain that react to specific drugs found in nature. These drugs mimic our natural brain chemistry, simple biology. It is our rationality that prevents us from abusing these drugs.

I have a certain prejudice towards alchohol. I've lost more people to this drug than any other drug. Yet it is a social norm to indulge and over indulge in this drug. It is one of the leaders in grinding a persons rational thinking process into the ground. With the holiday season coming up you'll probably be able to see normal people throw rationality right out the window and over indulge in food and drink. Then get behind a wheel of a car. This thought alone makes me cringe....

[Nullifidian]

Cigarettes and occasional alcoholic beverages aren't "taking drugs."  Don't put them on a par w/marijuana and cocaine.

I'm sorry to correct you but cigarettes and alcohol ARE drugs. Both substances contain chemicals that pass the blood brain barrier and alter our brain chemistry.

Pardon me...

On 2nd thought I think you are comparing them to "taking drugs" like as in illegal drugs. Reguardless social drinking is the leading cause of drug induced deaths in our society.

[The Durande]

I'm sorry to correct you but cigarettes and alcohol ARE drugs. Both substances contain chemicals that pass the blood brain barrier and alter our brain chemistry.

Pardon me...

On 2nd thought I think you are comparing them to "taking drugs" like as in illegal drugs. Reguardless social drinking is the leading cause of drug induced deaths in our society.

If you are going to regard cigarettes as a drug - then THEY must be the leading cause

of drug induced death. But why context-drop? Why did you blank-out the fact that I said occasional alcoholic beverages???? Obviously- and there can be no possible reaasonable doubt what I meant was: Occasional alcohol use and cigarette smoking that Ayn Rand mentioned a few times in the MILLIONS of words that she wrote is NOT and advocacy of taking drugs!

For christ's sake, look at the labels on just about any manufactured or processed food we eat daily, or even how produce is raised and fed - I could CONTEXT-DROP and easily

say that just about ALL Americans are ON DRUGS!

[Nullifidian]

If you are going to regard cigarettes as a drug - then THEY must be the leading cause

of drug induced death.  But why context-drop?  Why did you blank-out the fact that I said occasional alcoholic beverages????  Obviously- and there can be no possible reaasonable doubt what I meant was: Occasional alcohol use and cigarette smoking that Ayn Rand mentioned a few times in the MILLIONS of words that she wrote is NOT and advocacy of taking drugs!

For christ's sake, look at the labels on just about any manufactured or processed food we eat daily, or even how produce is raised and fed - I could CONTEXT-DROP and easily 

say that just about ALL Americans are ON DRUGS!

I stand corrected, yes cigs would be uno. Drink would be 2nd.

"No possible reaasonable doubt what you meant"???

It seems you're trying to bring me into the arguement of/for another poster. I'm staying out of that one please, thank you.

CONTEXT-DROP???

Wow, yes all people are on drugs in one form or another. It doesn't matter wether alcohol is occasional or not. One drink can kill the rational mind. I make no assertions whatsoever about Rand's advocacys. That again was another poster not me. I'll make sure to include your whole posting next time. I was just trying to condense my reply and obviously that is frowned upon here or at least by you. So please pardon my CONTEXT DROPPING. Thank you!

[Neurosophist]

say that just about ALL Americans are ON DRUGS!

44% of Americans are on medication according to the recent cnn poll.

[Nullifidian]

44% of Americans are on medication according to the recent cnn poll.

I can't live without my allergy med's, and lets not forget COFFEE!! In fact I bet the remaining 56% of people intake caffine on a regular basis either through carbonated beverages or CHOCOLATE! (my personal fave).

Altering one's consiousness is so common among people they don't even realize it's happening. Now if we could only ban Reality TV as a drug

[Thoyd Loki]

These equations of things like to cigarettes to pot are dishonest to say the least. Anyone who is saying that I am on drugs (because I took Advil this morning and a 20 oz latte) the same way a kid sucking off a bong is on drugs, is simply being evasive and dishonest. There is not just a difference of degree here, but of principle, intention, affect you name it.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

Now if we could only ban Reality TV as a drug

No government should ban reality TV or any actual drug. If you disagree then take a look at Introducing Objectivism on the ARI website (specially the last paragraph on politics).

[Neurosophist]

No government should ban reality TV or any actual drug.  If you disagree then take a look at Introducing Objectivism on the ARI website (specially the last paragraph on politics).

I think the statement made was merely facetious

[GoodOrigamiMan]

From a biological perspective there is very little difference between us and them. On a objective reality level we are totally different.

So what is the difference between the biological level and the objective reality level? Regardless, you didn’t answer my question.

Yes, evolution has programmed our brain chemistry to react to a number of outside stimuli once it is entered into our blood stream. We have specific centers of the brain that react to specific drugs found in nature. These drugs mimic our natural brain chemistry, simple biology. It is our rationality that prevents us from abusing these drugs.

Yes? I’m sorry but you are just plain wrong. Evolution did not program people to enjoy ecstasy or cocaine. Rather evolution led to the development of a pleasure pain mechanism, which we can affect with said drugs.

Rationality is not only what prevents us from abusing these drugs - it was what made the creation of these drugs possible in the first place. Notice how in the case of ecstasy and cocaine reason is being subverted to pleasure – aka to the task of creating or intensifying a sensation. The point remains that sensations are not a guide to life – they are in fact indicators - and using your rationality to make a short cut is undermining their function. It is more or less like cheating on a test… a good grade is an indicator of your progress and knowledge, if you cheat on the test then you still get an A, but that grade is merely a false indicator of your understanding of the material. Just like someone who is high on drugs is experiencing a false indicator that they are in harmony with reality. They still had to think to cheat on the test, but this thinking is misguided and ergo fundamentally irrational (fundamentally anti-life).

[GoodOrigamiMan]

I think the statement made was merely facetious

Hopefully.

[gadfly]

goldmonkee,

I'm not crazy about the dishes either (but I like piles of dirty dishes even less...). Some thoughts:

First, I admit to not being categorically against drugs. In my case, it's alcohol, and occasionally caffeine. I enjoy them, and I they do not impair my rationality when used in moderation, nor do I like it if accidentally my rationality becomes impaired due to a stronger than expected martini. Let's just say I would be sad if I could no longer enjoy a nice glass of wine or a good beer. If marijuana were legalized, I would not categorically rule out an occasional toke.

However, my thoughts are

1) At this point in time, it's still illegal. Right or wrong, you could be busted for it. Are you willing to live with the consequences?

2) Health. It always pays to be cautious. To some extent our health is cumulative, so make sure you're not doing something now you may regret later. While the information on NORML's site may be valid, they also have a vested interest in evidence that supports their case, so I'd also seek out other sources for information.

3) Your life. The worst thing about drugs used to escape boredom, in my opinion, is not what it will do to you, but what you will not do. Instead of making your daily life into something rewarding, you are seeking to forget about it. Not to belabor the point, but you mentioned doing the dishes as being boring. Yet nobody thinks about doing the dishes while they do them; it's too simple an activity. They think about stuff from their day, or tomorrow, or ideas, or life. So, what you are saying is: life's not interesting enough. Clear thought and action is exhilarating. I would focus your mind and energy on making your real life rewarding enough so that you are not interested in the weed any more.

[gadfly]

Sex and drugs and even violence (if you find the right bastard!  ) are all pleasures and joys. They help us celebrate life -- and are an inherent goodness themselves. Sex and drugs should be indulged in and engaged in as much as possible. Of course, they are properly a suppliment and compliment to life, and shouldn't be allowed to take over or become central. They are, as it were, forever on the side. That said, folks, there're absolutely GREAT! 

Objectivism does not equal hedonism. This is truly bizarre to see in an Objectivist forum, and is so far from rationality I can't imagine what you hope to accomplish by posting here, since no Objectivist could accept it, and would probably not be willing to spend the time to debate it.

[Nullifidian]

I think the statement made was merely facetious

Yes, you're correct. Thank you for stating such to those who take things a little to literally. I was trying to bring a little humour into the conversation.

[Nullifidian]

From a biological perspective there is very little difference between us and them. On a objective reality level we are totally different.

So what is the difference between the biological level and the objective reality level? Regardless, you didn’t answer my question.

Yes? I’m sorry but you are just plain wrong. Evolution did not program people to enjoy ecstasy or cocaine. Rather evolution led to the development of a pleasure pain mechanism, which we can affect with said drugs.

Rationality is not only what prevents us from abusing these drugs - it was what made the creation of these drugs possible in the first place. Notice how in the case of ecstasy and cocaine reason is being subverted to pleasure – aka to the task of creating or intensifying a sensation. The point remains that sensations are not a guide to life – they are in fact indicators - and using your rationality to make a short cut is undermining their function. It is more or less like cheating on a test… a good grade is an indicator of your progress and knowledge, if you cheat on the test then you still get an A, but that grade is merely a false indicator of your understanding of the material. Just like someone who is high on drugs is experiencing a false indicator that they are in harmony with reality. They still had to think to cheat on the test, but this thinking is misguided and ergo fundamentally irrational (fundamentally anti-life).

I never said a thing about ecstasy and cocaine. You are simply taking my words and doing the twist. If you actually look at what I have posted here you would see that I'm observing DRUGS from a 50,000 foot view and giving nothing but facts. If you want to have a rational discussion I'm all for it but first YOU must show some forum edicate. If you cannot acknowledge the biological facts I've posted then go back to school. The pleasure pain centers of the brain came way before any man made drug was produced, so put away your magnifying glass on the subject and try to look at things from distance.

While I'm at it I'd like to inform you that religion is in a lot of ways a drug. So spouting off links and refering me to passages of Rand only makes me feel you are no different than a fundie knocking on my door.

[NIJamesHughes]

In my opinion, there are two pretty good ways to compare and contrast the various drugs in question: amount of pleasure and amount of death. Traditional or "soft" drugs like cigarettes and alcohol, in my experience at least, deliver a minimal amount of pleasure with a simply extraordinary amount of death. The "hard" drugs or "narcotics" of marijuana and cocaine, in turn, deliver the opposite.

I continue to think that this vivid differentiation is an important issue which needs to be analyzed in more depth. If Rand or ARI has explored psychodelia I'm unaware of it. But a mindless "just say no" doesn't cut it. There are two sides to every issue and I simply haven't heard the two debated reasonably.    

Ayn Rand discusses drug use in "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution."

"Apollo and Dionysus" page 80,

"But all discussions or arguements about the hippies are almost superfluous in the face of one overwhelming fact: most of the hippies are drug addicts.

Is there any doubt that drug addiction is an escape from an unbearable inner state, from a reality one can not deal with, from an atrophying mind one can never fully destroy? If apollonian reason were unnatural to man, and Dionysian "intuition" brought him closer to the truth, the apostles of irrationality would not have to resort to drugs. Happy, self-confident men do not seek to get 'stoned.'

Drug addiction is an attempt to obliterate one's consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity. As such, it is so obsene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity.

Such is the nature of the conflict of Apollo verse Dionysus"

Any questions?

[JoshJaffe]

responding to

Drugs that are produced are not 'metaphysicaly given'.

and

No… the distinction is as follows:

Metaphysically given entities:  A mountain, a tidal wave, a bolt of lightning, a forest, a cave, sunlight, etcetera.

As opposed to other entities like: a ski resort, a surfboard, a lightning rod, a log cabin, drawings on the wall of a cave, sun block, solar panels, etcetera.

The difference is the latter group was created by choice (by beings with free will), ergo it is subject to moral evaluation.  You cannot morally evaluate a mountain, it is metaphysically given – there was never a choice for anyone on whether or not to create the mountain.  The question "is a drug good or bad?" is part of a moral evaluation.  It is a moral evaluation because some person made the choice to create it.

I think in a very important sense -- in the context of this discussion -- drugs are metaphysically given.

It is true that drugs are produced. This has consequences in politics such as whether they should be regulated, and whether people should trade value to get them.

But the context of a decision about whether or not to use a particular drug at a particular time is different. Questions about what one should do (to oneself) fall under ethics. I think the primary ethical question in this case is what effect the drug will have. The effect of a given drug on your body and consciousness is metaphysically given.

[Nullifidian]

Ayn Rand discusses drug use in "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution."

"Apollo and Dionysus" page 80,

"But all discussions or arguements about the hippies are almost superfluous in the face of one overwhelming fact: most of the hippies are drug addicts.

Is there any doubt that drug addiction is an escape from an unbearable inner state, from a reality one can not deal with, from an atrophying mind one can never fully destroy? If apollonian reason were unnatural to man, and Dionysian "intuition" brought him closer to the truth, the apostles of irrationality would not have to resoty to drugs. Happy, self-confident men do not seek to get 'stoned.'

Drug addiction is an attempt to obliterate one's consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity. As such, it is so obsene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity.

Such is the nature of the conflict of Apollo verse Dionysus"

Any questions?

If you've ever worked in a drug rehab your opinions may differ. Getting up close with the afflicted can change your perspective too. I could go into the many different ways a person can become addicted but the one that contradicts your "an attempt to obliterate one's consciousness" is the biological predisposition towards certain drugs. Studies have shown attention deficit people having a strong tendancy towrds stimulants. There are lots of other genetic studies showing how people's brain chemistry leads them towards drugs. Drug addiction is just a plain sickness that sad to say usually gets treated with more drugs.

[NIJamesHughes]

If you've ever worked in a drug rehab your opinions may differ. Getting up close with the afflicted can change your perspective too. I could go into the many different ways a person can become addicted but the one that contradicts your "an attempt to obliterate one's consciousness" is the biological predisposition towards certain drugs. Studies have shown attention deficit people having a strong tendancy towrds stimulants. There are lots of other genetic studies showing how people's brain chemistry leads them towards drugs. Drug addiction is just a plain sickness that sad to say usually gets treated with more drugs.

Two words: Free Will.