posted
Actually, kat, there is evidence that the state of religious euphoria itself is addicting. So any activity which produces this state could in theory suffice.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And not all religious activities produce that religious euphoria. It's still not specific enough.
It's like saying "Science is wrong." Some of it is, and hopefully as there is more research, we'll figure out which parts, but it's just too vague a statement to be useful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in high school I was fairly actively involved in my church's (large) youth group. One of the things we did was have a few people get on stage to play instruments and sing worship songs, while the students sang along. Several times I experienced a "spirit high", which several leaders had referenced in various talks. Now, that high is nice enough, but you cannot spend your entire life in an auditorium. That would prevent living a "normal" life much more than smoking marijuana every day. We only did it once or twice a week. Smoking marijuana once or twice a week would probably be about as expensive for anyone who used around five dollars worth of gas to get to church.
The state of dissociation has been compared to that of meditation and/or yoga by a user who started with DXM and switched. I have never practiced yoga or meditated in that way, so I cannot vouch for it personally. More conventional psychedelics have produced states of samadhi extremely similar to that described in Eastern traditions, although again I am relying on accounts of others, rather than my own personal experience of those traditions.
The last few times I have volunteered, the headspace I was in upon finishing was similar to the one produced by about a third of a regular strength MDMA pill, although admittedly it lacked the pleasant tactile sensations. Nor was I volunteering because I place a high value on service to others. The last time I only went to see a friend, but it still worked. Someone who actually believed they were making the world a better place or following God's will would likely get a more intense experience than I. I have heard many people who volunteer regularly say they found themselves coming back to the experience due to how good it made them feel. Admittedly some of them (depending on the nature of their work) are probably subconsciously (or consciously) power tripping, but that corresponds to the headspace generally caused by amphetamines and cocaine.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Drugs alter perspectives, emotions, and priorities. Not judgement (except as expressed via priorities), and not personalities... well, not without a conscious effort on the part of the user.
This is not true. Everytime I've witness a person who'd taken a significant amount of a mind-altering substance, they've had different judgement and a different personality. Alcohol, for instance, often makes people more open and extraverted, although other times it does the exact opposite. And judgement is quite often significantly different - people on substances will often do things I know for a fact they wouldn't do normally. That may be a matter of priorities, but it is definitely also a matter of judgement.
When you impair your judgement you break what is possibly the most fundamental and important moral rule of them all: Always use your best judgement.
And when you deliberately alter your own character and personality, you disrespect yourself. The implication often is that you aren't good or cool or likeable enough as your normal self - and I think that implication is self-damaging.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiosity, of the people here condemning marijuana, how many drink on a regular basis? I'll start : I do not drink, smoke, or do drugs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine. Drugs alter your judgement and personality. I disagree, and wish you would address what I wrote about intoxication as an excuse, but it is an issue of how personality, judgement, priorities, emotions, and perspective are defined, and I have better things to do than argue with you over semantics. I reject the assertion that sobriety is always one's best judgement.
Guess what? My own default character and/or personality is not as good as my personality on certain drugs. Some people would find me more likeable on a given drug, and some less. In my own case, if I did not lose any friends (and I may have) when I started using drugs they disapproved of, I certainly lost acquaintances. Personally, the more I enjoy or receive a net benefit from a state of mind, the more I like it. This means that I do like myself better when I am under the influence of most drugs than when I am sober. <edit> I absolutely am more likely to follow the morals of the "people are owed aid even if their misfortune is not your fault (which it always is)" crowd when I am stoned or rolling. That makes my character "better" by their standards. Not by mine, but drugs help my standards as well... because I consciously chose to use them for that purpose. </edit>
As for being cool... it depends on the person more than the drug, as well as how cool is defined. If it is cool to rebel against societal expectations, then cigarette smokers are cool. If cool is self-destruction, smokers are cool. If cool is taking steps to increase the chance of dying from something other than lung or heart cancer is cool, smokers are uncool. If you get your political opinions from NOFX, drugs are good.
quote: Drugs are good, they let you do things that you know you not should And when you do them people think that you're cool And when you do them people think that you're cool
For many people, more than would admit it, more than would even have the necessary data, their sober characters and/or personalities are not as good or likeable (to me and/or others) as their personality on a given drug. For example, someone who is extremely anxious and shows it I find tiresome to be around, as well as less good than they have the potential to be. If they take a benzo, or even a drink of alcohol, that means I like being around them. Not that they should do drugs because of my opinions, but the opinion does go up. Antidepressants alter the personality for the better if they work, and for the worse if they do not.
Also, every time you witnessed? How often is that, and how many and which substances? Who are you or anyone else to say their sober judgement is always morally (or otherwise) better than their altered judgement? I do not make the opposite claim; certainly sobriety is best for some people. Not all drugs impair mental function; some (stimulants) improve it.
posted
Danzig, do you generally post sober or while under the influence? I'm curious as to whether a chemical or your natural personality influences how I feel about you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of the above. Does being under the influence of caffeine count as sober to you? Not to me.
In case you think that the drugs are responsible for me recognizing that your need is not my obligation, no. Well, perhaps caffeine, but nothing else.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morally, if it is wrong to take what prohibitionists generally recognize as drugs, it is also wrong to take pain relief, Viagra, or antidepressants. Sobriety is best, remember? But I am sure someone will find a way to attempt a justification.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would submit that there are real and valid distinctions between taking medications intended to reduce pain and/or prescribed to treat genuine mental distress and taking self-prescribed, often impure and/or illegal concoctions mainly intended for escapism.
I'll freely agree that the line gets really blurry when we're talking about things like an open prescription for Valium -- but, even there, such drugs are generally legally unavailable except under the supervision of trained medical staff.
You'll forgive me if I do not endorse chemical experimentation on one's own brain.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Morally, if it is wrong to take what prohibitionists generally recognize as drugs, it is also wrong to take pain relief, Viagra, or antidepressants. Sobriety is best, remember? But I am sure someone will find a way to attempt a justification.
This last post is a perfect example of the dangers of not understanding the reasoning of someone you disagree with. There are many factors that can be considered when deciding if taking a particular substance at a particular time for a particular reason is right or wrong. To blithely assume that the categorization of one substance/instance/reason grouping as wrong requires the same grouping of the thousands of other such groupings is fallacious and near question-begging.
posted
Pain can be emotional or physical. Narcotics* relieve both. There are people who use illegal narcotics because the legal ones are either too expensive or unavailable, due to laws designed to make sure not one single drug user gets a legal prescription. Why is it wrong to take heroin (which can be easily purified, and even on the street is likely to contain more pure substance than most (all?) hydrocodone pills) but not Percoset, which contains either 5 or 10 mg oxycodone and a lot of useless and dangerous acetaminophen? Most dealers at least try to cut their product with safe ingredients, because even though every single last one of them is possessed by Satan himself, dead users are bad for business. Heroin has also been getting purer since at least the middle 90's, despite being illegal.
What about amphetamine? Adderall is prescribed to children (and to a somewhat lesser extent adults) like Halloween candy. The 20 and 30 IRs even taste like candy. Can I get a legal speed prescription? Does that make it ok? It really does give me more ability to focus, as well as motivation.
Maybe I and others take illegal drugs to escape a genuine mental illness. What if I get diagnosed with one and then take illegal drugs to treat it? What if those drugs are the same ones prescribed to treat that illness, and taken in the same dosage?
There is a middle ground between endorsing something and condemning it. I will forgive the first, but not the second. Well, I will forgive the second, but only if the attitude has changed. I have used drugs (or specific ways of taking a drug) that I do not endorse or encourage others to do. Even a drug or two I actually regret using, or using as much as I did. There are also some drugs that do not sound enjoyable or wise which I have not tried, and have no intention of doing so. None of those drugs/actions were or are actually immoral, though.
Not all drug use is experimentation. Some of mine was, but if a drug has been used for thousands of years with relatively well-known effects and dangers, it is no more experimenting than the labs we did in chemistry class. Yes, it is possible to accidentally harm oneself. People who pay attention generally will not. Life is short, why not enjoy it?
There are instances when taking a particular drug for a particular reason at a particular time (did you mean situation or circumstance?) is wrong, if you meant situation or circumstance. When you have been invited to private property, in most instances it is wrong to go against the owner's wishes. Using antibiotics unnecesarily is wrong, wrong enough that they are the only drugs that should have their availability to adults regulated. Antibiotics have a measurable negative effect upon unconsenting others when used inappropriately, something that cannot be said for any other drug.
One situation or circumstances that are irrelevant to a drug's morality is having someone with a piece of paper and hopefully a superior education say it is ok. Another is having someone with a gun say it is ok. A third is influencing what is supposed to be a sentient, sapient entity into believing that perhaps going against the beliefs of their parents or society is not actually intrinsically wrong, or believing that the goals of others for them should be their goals as well.
*Opiates or opioids. Cocaine is not a narcotic; it is pretty much the opposite of one, no matter how hard the US government pretends otherwise.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue the difference is this: Something is a mind-altering substance if it used to alter your mind to its natural state. And something is medicine if it is used to return your mind to its natural state when something (chemical or biological) has altered it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The natural state of someone with a broken leg is pain. I suggest that you mean 'usual'. I also suggest that you not use words that you clearly do not understand the meaning of.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. If you have a chemical imbalance, that is your natural state of mind. It is also your normal state of mind until or unless you take medication.
And something is a mind-altering substance if it alters your state of mind when taken into your body. If medicines are not a subset of mind-altering substances (being physically ill can make you depressed) they overlap.
Also, everyone has the right to decide their own medical treatment, whether or not their decision is the "best". This right exists even if their reasoning for choosing that treatment is provably incorrect, as long as it does not affect others. In other words, the only people who are doing anything wrong when making or influencing that decision are the idiots who ask for antibiotics when they are not needed, and the doctors who prescribe them. Prescribe me my drugs of choice, jerks; I at least have some basic understanding of what they do and how they do it.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I have no interest in debating with you when it's immoral to take what drugs for what reasons.
I am interested in pointing out that it is possible for taking drug A at time B for reason C to be considered immoral, while taking drug D at time E for reason F is considered immoral.
In other words, the if-then statement represented by "Morally, if it is wrong to take what prohibitionists generally recognize as drugs, it is also wrong to take pain relief, Viagra, or antidepressants" is not true without additional proof of the entire contention.
Here it is symbolocially:
If A then B.
You can give reasons why proposition A is not true to your hearts content without proving or disproving "If A then B."
Drugs and methods of consuming drugs with non-medical uses = D Drugs and methods of consuming drugs without direct non-local consequences = F Drugs and methods of consuming drugs with direct non-local consequences = A Drugs and methods of consuming drugs with direct non-local consequences to which all affected people have consented = C Immoral = I
Direct non-local consequences are defined as having an unpreventable effect upon the physiology of someone other than the person ingesting it. Secondhand smoke is a non-local consequence, as are bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Drunk driving, emotional distress, and poor role models are not.
Consent can be explicit or implied. Implied consent is granted when the non-consuming party has no reasonable expectation of avoiding non-local consequences. Voluntarily entering the property of a known smoker grants implied consent. Entering the property of one who may or may not smoke does as well. Asking someone who you have just learned smokes to refrain until you leave the premises withdraws it, assuming you leave when requested.
No F are I. Some (most) D are F. Some (most) D are not I.
No C are I. All C are A. Some A are not I.
So Thor, if you are reading this, do not smoke marijuana around anyone unable or unwilling to give consent. Feel free to eat brownies or vaporize it whether they like it or not.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
