drugs

[IRn101]

And what happens when someone becomes addicted to that drug and are incapable of rationally rejecting it?

Why, is that an argument for approving government regulation on drug transactions? If the "someone" here was exercising his right not to buy, he wouldn't be addicted to begin with.

If he brought and used harmful drugs in the first place without physical threat of force from the dealers, then he only has himself to blame when he gets addicted.

[Grames]

Being addicted does not make a person incapable of rationally rejecting the drug. People break addictions all the time on their own.

Certain drugs may make a person incapable of being rational, but the craving and the addiction behavior takes place in the absence of the drug, between fixes.

[444_4]

Drugs aren't the only things people get addicted to. Overeating, sex, porn, gambling, tv, internet, video games, etc. can mess a person's life up, too. Doesn't mean any of those activities, including drug use, are inherently evil. It's the overuse of such things that's dangerous. Recreation is great, in fact necessary, in order to live a good life, but not when it starts to hinder one's ability to make something of his or herself.

However, some of the commonly referred to hard drugs do seem to create a physiological dependence in the user, so if one was to use them, he should know what he might be getting into.

[TheEgoist]

So by that logic if someone only injected a little bit of heroin or snorted a little bit of coke it would be ok. As long as it didnt stop them from being completely rational.

Because there is no difference between the before and after mentioned substances.

Along with being a hell of a lot more dangerous, it has completely different effects on one's mental capacity. This isn't even good rationalism.

[RationalBiker]

And what happens when someone becomes addicted to that drug and are incapable of rationally rejecting it?

Sounds like that someone made a bad decision for which they are suffering consequences.

[RationalBiker]

However, some of the commonly referred to hard drugs do seem to create a physiological dependence in the user, so if one was to use them, he should know what he might be getting into.

I don't think that some recreational drugs are really prone to "casual" use. For instance, I don't think I've ever heard of or seen a "casual" crack user or meth user. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, but the evidence I have available to me at this point suggests that one time usage is typically enough to create a dependence / addiction.

[prosperity]

I don't think that some recreational drugs are really prone to "casual" use. For instance, I don't think I've ever heard of or seen a "casual" crack user or meth user. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, but the evidence I have available to me at this point suggests that one time usage is typically enough to create a dependence / addiction.

Perhaps we are focusing too much on the drug itself instead of the underlying reason for using the drug. Why do people use drugs?

...for example, the only reason I've ever heard someone give - in essential terms now - for using pot is that it makes them "feel good". They're after the high. They're after an emotional response. But that emotional response is not to any particular achievement. The value becomes - intrinsically - the drug. They are after the high for the high's sake.

Could you say that doing drugs promotes an intrinsic value system? This may not mean much to the non-Objectivist, but the implications would be clear to one familiar with Rand.

Of course, I've known a few pot smokers who were essentially looking for the effect (feeling good) without the cause (achievement). In my view, while perhaps not immoral, it is self-destructive.

[444_4]

Of course, I've known a few pot smokers who were essentially looking for the effect (feeling good) without the cause (achievement). In my view, while perhaps not immoral, it is self-destructive.

Self-destruction is immoral. When getting high, on pot or whatever, becomes a person's top value as opposed to one's own life, he has surrendered his rational pursuit of goals to his emotional whims. Can't get much more non-Objectivist than that.

In response to RationalBiker's post- I agree. I don't think there are many people who try shooting heroin and just walk away from it with no difficulties. There might be a few exceptions, but that's my take on it.

[prosperity]

Self-destruction is immoral. When getting high, on pot or whatever, becomes a person's top value as opposed to one's own life, he has surrendered his rational pursuit of goals to his emotional whims. Can't get much more non-Objectivist than that.

In response to RationalBiker's post- I agree. I don't think there are many people who try shooting heroin and just walk away from it with no difficulties. There might be a few exceptions, but that's my take on it.

I guess I was thinking in broad terms of whether or not the person's value system was such that drugs were deemed altruistic or egoistic. But if you were upholding your life as the standard of value, which I can't really see where you could avoid doing that (if only implicitly), I would have to agree about self-destructiveness being immoral.

I guess where the connection would have to be made is the realization or the acceptance that you cannot operate on the premise that you can "eat your cake before you have it".

[FeatherFall]

I don't think that some recreational drugs are really prone to "casual" use. For instance, I don't think I've ever heard of or seen a "casual" crack user or meth user. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, but the evidence I have available to me at this point suggests that one time usage is typically enough to create a dependence / addiction.

I might be mistaken, but I've heard meth highs are notoriously long; a day or more of sleepless energetic euphoria followed by a near equal period of sleepless crash, including "tweaker naps." I don't think I could spend two or more days of my life doing something and call it casual. Any drug that effects the user for more than a couple of hours would seem to prohibit casual use. Of course, this doesn't address the actual effects of the drug. Hallucinogens strike me as being across the moral line, but you can bet I'd take some kind of wonder-speed if it made me think faster and otherwise had no adverse health effects. I wouldn't be taking this stuff casually, either.

Regardless of ill-effects and immorality, one cannot justify using force to prevent drug use. Even if a drug actually caused it's users to violate others' rights, it should still be legal so long as the user takes precautions to prevent himself from completing his drug-induced crimes (like self-imposed restraints or confinement for the duration of the high). I haven't heard any substantiated claims that there are any drugs that even do this.

[Brule]

I actually believe drug use can be very moral. It's really a matter of value judgment and what the objective is in using any drug, from coffee to heroin. If the goal is to evade reality there is a problem. Even MDMA was being used as an aid in therapy before being made illegal. A prostitute trying to earn her next hit of crack and a Colombian laborer chewing on coca leaves (like we may drink coffee) are taking in the same chemical, though for completely different reasons and with completely different results.

In general it's a good idea to be suspicious about drug use. In Rand's time drug use was closely tied to hippies, collectivism, and subjectivity and for many, many people this still holds true. But under the right situations, drug use CAN promote one's life.

[Erik Christensen]

Like I've posted elsewhere, of all the drugs one can take to relax (this includes caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco) I prefer opiates. Under the influence of an opiate one can relax quite nicely without the fuzziness, emotional roller coaster, or poor motor judgement that occurs with alcohol ingestion. Obviously, any drug taken can be dangerous (that includes caffeine!) With opiates you can become very relaxed and enjoy yourself without succumbing to the brain fry and all the clumsy stupidness that usually accompanies alcohol inebriation. I find it odd how, for many Oists, the drug of choice is alcohol, like it's the only one christened by objectivism. If anything, alcohol would seem to me to be the last drug of choice if one is wishing to relax.

[Geoff]

I find it odd how, for many Oists, the drug of choice is alcohol, like it's the only one christened by objectivism.

I think someone else touched on this, but it could have something to do with alcohol being legal and the fact that doing drugs isn't worth the risk of going to jail.

[Nacirema]

I hold, as it's been said before, that if used moderately and in a purely recreational way (i.e., not escapism) then drug use can be moral. Whether or not you deem this to be worth the risk of jail time is your own judgement. I view, however, that doing so is not a rational risk and is instead a sign of a problem that one is willing to risk their own liberty and right to life for a few hours of pleasure.

Also, a related question: is their any validity to certain chemical addictions (alcohol, for example) to be passed genetically, or is that simply a scapegoat for people who are addicted to cast the responsibility of their actions onto other people? I ask because I know that my family has had a long line of alcoholism, and if their is validty to this claim, then it also becomes logical (and not just a matter of personal taste) for me not to consume any alcohol or other chemical substances.

[TheEgoist]

My family has a strong alcohol addiction past. I've drank alcohol and have not become addicted. In fact, I really don't like it all that much.

[prosperity]

I think someone else touched on this, but it could have something to do with alcohol being legal and the fact that doing drugs isn't worth the risk of going to jail.

Actually, I remember reading long ago that red wine (in moderation) was actually good for you. 9 times out of 10 if I do drink alcohol - and it's not very often - that's what I'm drinking (some type of wine).

The one time out of ten I might have a beer and very rarely liqueur.

I hold, as it's been said before, that if used moderately and in a purely recreational way (i.e., not escapism) then drug use can be moral. Whether or not you deem this to be worth the risk of jail time is your own judgement. I view, however, that doing so is not a rational risk and is instead a sign of a problem that one is willing to risk their own liberty and right to life for a few hours of pleasure.

Also, a related question: is their any validity to certain chemical addictions (alcohol, for example) to be passed genetically, or is that simply a scapegoat for people who are addicted to cast the responsibility of their actions onto other people? I ask because I know that my family has had a long line of alcoholism, and if their is validty to this claim, then it also becomes logical (and not just a matter of personal taste) for me not to consume any alcohol or other chemical substances.

Seems like if you are smoking opiates with the intention of relaxing, that that's some kind of escapism. Why not relax without the drugs? Note your honest answer to that...

[Nacirema]

Seems like if you are smoking opiates with the intention of relaxing, that that's some kind of escapism. Why not relax without the drugs? Note your honest answer to that...

It seems you could apply this argument to food as well.

"Why not try relaxing without ice cream?" Or "why not try eating dinner without dessert?"

My honest answer is this: if one wishes to occasionally enjoy some form a drug to relax, then why not? Now this assumes of course that the person has weighed the pros and cons, which includes the long term effects on both his/her physiological and psycological being.

This would mean the issue is still whether or not you can relax without the drugs. Personally, I find people who insist that "fun=drunkenness," and that they can't "cut loose" or have fun without being drunk to be morally repugnant in their regards to recreation, as well as mentally stiffled. However, if a person is capable of relaxing without the use of narcotics, then they shouldn't be condemed for indulging (safely) in their own selfish pleasure.

[FeatherFall]

Actually, I remember reading long ago that red wine (in moderation) was actually good for you.

I've heard this too, even with other forms of alcohol. But I typically hear that it has to be a moderate daily regimen over a long period of time. There are supposed heart benefits or some such. I'm not familiar with the studies.

[Nacirema]

I believe that it's supposed to be one glass a day for women, and two for men.

[Erik Christensen]

prosperity, it's not the alcohol in wine that is good for you, but rather a chemical called resveratrol (which can be bought otc without the alcohol): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I've always suspected that most people who bring up that "factoid" about wine are just looking for an excuse to drink. Worse, for some reason they are trying to persuade *me* that *I* should drink.

[edit--qualified a generalization]

Edited January 27, 2009 by Steve D'Ippolito

[FeatherFall]

prosperity, it's not the alcohol in wine that is good for you, but rather a chemical called resveratrol (which can be bought otc without the alcohol): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol

I don't suppose anyone produces this supplement in a delicious, liquid form?

[prosperity]

I've always suspected that most people who bring up that "factoid" about wine are just looking for an excuse to drink. Worse, for some reason they are trying to persuade *me* that *I* should drink.

[edit--qualified a generalization]

haha...I've heard other people say that also as a reason to drink a bottle a day, but then I've known a few folks who just have a drink every day with dinner. The problem is that if you are doing that it could get expensive unless you are drinking from those boxes...but it's not always the greatest tasting wine. "Factoid" implies that it is somehow incorrect...is there something untrue about the resveratrol in wine?

I don't suppose anyone produces this supplement in a delicious, liquid form?

Someone probably does...I'm a little skeptical sometimes though with supplements. Depending on what it is, it may not be absorbed in the same way that it would if you just ate (or drank) the food/beverage that naturally contains it...

...I don't know enough about resveretrol to say though.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

"Factoid" implies that it is somehow incorrect...is there something untrue about the resveratrol in wine?

It's probably true about the resveratrol in wine; it's the people who insist it's the alcohol in the wine (or just say "wine" and want you to conclude it's the alcohol) that provides the benefit, that I am complaining about.

They'd be a lot less enthusiastic about a non-intoxicating way of getting the resveratrol. It's just an excuse to get the alcohol.

[Brule]

It's probably true about the resveratrol in wine; it's the people who insist it's the alcohol in the wine (or just say "wine" and want you to conclude it's the alcohol) that provides the benefit, that I am complaining about.

They'd be a lot less enthusiastic about a non-intoxicating way of getting the resveratrol. It's just an excuse to get the alcohol.

Red wine has more flavonoids and antioxidants than most other alcoholic drinks, but if you don't want to start drinking wine tea has similar benefits. Moderate amounts of alcohol has been shown to have a very solid positive effect on heart issues, the most abundant being an increase in HDL (good) cholesterol. There seems to be many other minor good effects, but again only at moderate levels. Beers with active brewer's yeast can provide B family vitamins and an amazing assortment of amino acids. While I still wouldn't push a non drinker to drink just for these effects, moderate drinking will usually provide more positives than negatives.

I should mention I'm a wine and beer lover and will be making a batch of homebrew later tonight.