The use of drugs in achieving positive ethical standing - Point of discussion? - General

I have been running over this concept in my head for quite a bit of time now, the idea being that most commonplace people perceive the use of drugs to alter perception as a fundamental moral negative, regardless of the purpose or the effects. These types of people perceive drugs in a very strict sense: Medical drugs are strictly used to alleviate medical symptoms such as pain or allergies. Things that make functioning as a "sober" human being more difficult - the drug use is intended to make you as sober as possible. Recreational drugs are ethically corrupt, and possibly the most narrow-minded and uneducated point: medications that alleviate psychological symptoms such as depression meds or ADD/ADHD meds are bullshit and people should suck it up (aka the "I know absolutely nothing about basic human psychology but I still feel entitled enough to think my opinion is somehow important in a field that I have no knowledge or experience in" argument). For the remainder of the post, for the sole purpose of novelty fun, I'm going to refer to being ethically positive as paragon (such as... doing your homework..?), and ethically negative as renegade (such as murder). Points that are neither renegade nor paragon are, of course, "neutral". Neutral being an action, point, or idea that is not either ethically positive or ethically negative, like eating cereal. To divide this up a bit, we have the 3 basic points 1. Recreational drug use is 100% renegade. No loopholes, using drugs for anything besides #2 is renegade. 2. Use of drugs to alleviate medical issues is neutral. 3. Psychological/Psychiatric medications are bullshit, but as it is prescribed by a doctor, is therefore neutral and not renegade. And go from there. [b]The main thing I want to debate is (in your own opinion) whether or not using drugs, recreational or otherwise, in an effort to benefit and improve the self, is this truly ethically detrimental, or as renegade as we are led to believe.[/b] My argument on the subject spans a few different points. I'd rather break this down in an organized list rather than type an essay like I did in the drug policy thread: 1. Using stimulants like Amphetamine to achieve a feeling of happiness in order to function as a better human being is not renegade. At worst, it's neutral, and at best, it's paragon. I mean, why does the use of drugs have anything to do with how someone becomes a better person? Why does someone who smokes DMT and goes from apathetic and lethargic to compassionate and active carry the same notion as any other criminal or "druggie"? I think it's completely unreasonable and an argument entirely devoid of empathy. For starters, happiness is illusory. Well, the [i]feeling[/i] is illusory. That happy smiley euphoria you associate with happiness is not really happiness, it's a drug that your brain processes in order to feel euphoria, and it's called dopamine. Stimulants like Dextroamphetamine simply limit your ability to take the dopamine back into your brain, so it circulates your body more, and causes a longer, energetic euphoria, as opposed to the short burst you feel when, let's say, you kiss a woman for the first time. So yeah, all Amphetamine is, is us figuring out how to cheat the system. Basically a "happiness cheat code", it's actually unbelievably interesting how complex our bodies and brains really are. Anyway, so basic biochemistry tells us our concept of happiness is nothing but a drug anyway, so it pretty much ends the argument on the spot. I can't seem to figure out or construct a plausible response from the opposing party. I'd really like to find someone who actually holds this opinion and debate with them personally. 2. So biochemistry covers why happiness is a lie and stimulants just subvert the system, but what about psychedelics? They don't simply make you happy, they cause you to hallucinate. I think the general consensus is that hallucinating is a bad thing, since it is typically associated with a health problem in the eyes of the common man (dehydration, sleep deprivation, being poisoned I suppose..?) But does it change things when the effect of the drug itself is to cause hallucinations intentionally and harmlessly, like LSD for example. And does it change things further if the psychedelic experience changed the personality or view of the user, for the better? In example, let's say a really close-minded and uninventive individual drops acid, trips out, and undergoes intense introspection, realizes some new things, and "rewrites" himself. Next day, the kid is much more open minded, he's learning more abstract concepts and taken up acute interest in knowledge. Starts performing better in class or at work, his previously cynical view was replaced with that of a much more positive person. His trip caused introspection to a degree that caused him to become a better person, is what I'm saying. What sort of standard do we have for that? Or other psychonauts who trip out in an effort to learn about themselves and the world, and to experience and see new things? From being on this side of the line, I vouch purely on the basis of knowledge. Anything that can elicit knowledge, especially introspective, has to be paragon. If knowledge is gained, nothing is a failure, and that's how I view the world; to learn new things every day of my life (a view shaped by my experiences with psychedelics, I may add). As for a response to this, I'm not sure either. I've never even encountered such a concept as psychonautics before recently, I'm sure the wide majority of the average population has no clue either. I'll finish up my 3rd, possibly 4th point in a bit, gotta go to class. I'd like to hear some rebuttals to my two paragraphs here for sure, even from a devils advocate. I simply want to understand the thought process and reasoning for that type of opinion. Additionally, I'd like to ask something really easy of anyone debating in this thread, one simple rule: Don't be a dickhead. Debate section isn't for being an asshole or throwing ad-hominems. Debate is the exchange of opinionated information between parties. If you refuse to have your opinion or perception altered, don't fucking post. You're uninteresting to speak to as a person, and an unreasonable and shitty debater. You can't continue to reciprocate "LSD IS BAD" after multiple posters have cited medical journals disproving your claims, get me? Basically, act your age. If you are proven wrong, don't get butthurt. Either acknowledge defeat or just leave, we don't want you here if you're going to be a douchebag, but I'll always shake hands with a man who admits he's wrong.

What the fuck am I reading [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how you debate" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

So we should all toke before passing laws?

That's not what I was getting at, at all. I sure wasn't saying everyone should drop acid and meditate either. I offer to debate an analysis of the ethical skew of the use of recreational drugs, that being if it is neutral, ethical, or unethical, and what factors determine such. The common perception is that rec drug use is unethical and corrupt or depraved; my argument was against that type of perception.

[QUOTE=yuki;33119980]In example, let's say a really close-minded and uninventive individual drops acid, trips out, and undergoes intense introspection, realizes some new things, and "rewrites" himself. Next day, the kid is much more open minded, he's learning more abstract concepts and taken up acute interest in knowledge. Starts performing better in class or at work, his previously cynical view was replaced with that of a much more positive person. His trip caused introspection to a degree that caused him to become a better person, is what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] This is a very accurate description of the change in perception I experienced after smoking marijuana for the first time. It was a lot to do with the discovery of how harmless it was, and how much I had been lied to for my entire life. Besides all the things you described regarding self-discovery and understanding, which there was a lot of, it taught me to think for myself, to form my own opinions, and to always question the information that was being given to me. Needless to say, I am now of the belief that substance use is up to the user, and it is in their responsibility to USE drugs and not ABUSE them. Everything can be abused, and drugs are no different. I've taken many different substances in my life from coke to DMT, and I am confident that I am mature enough to do so responsibly. I am comfortable with exploring the depths of my mind or putting my body through foreign experiences and feelings, which may not be for everyone. The stigma attached to such opinions and activities is in my opinion archaic and unfounded. I also find your writing style very convoluted and I struggled to follow your point. I also don't know how coherent the above is, I'm just about falling asleep.

I think that using drugs should be ethically neutral. Not viewed upon as a good thing and not viewed upon as a bad thing. However becoming addicting/abusing drugs should still be looked upon as a bad thing. [editline]4th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yuki;33119980] That happy smiley euphoria you associate with happiness is not really happiness, it's a drug that your brain processes in order to feel euphoria, and it's called dopamine. [/QUOTE] Uhh yes it is really happiness because thats how happiness is created. Thats like saying hunger isn't really hunger then describing the chemical process causing you to be hungry.

its not the drug its the drug user. if you buy a car, drive carelessly and have an accident is it the cars fault or yours? same with drugs, its not bad that you do them, its bad to do them carelessly. thats why we only use them under prescription (supposedly) because the doctor know what amount to give and on which basis so its a use and not abuse, as some drugs can be addictive and cloud our own judgement on what the limit of proper use is. there are still some people that can properly use them without the need of prescription and mantain an appropiate level of use.

I personally think that the concept of ethical standing as a result of drug use or mis-use is fundamentally flawed. Defining recreational drug use as renegade is narrow minded and does not take into account the concept of emotional health and personal freedoms. Why is emotional health so different from physical / mental health? If somebody finds that drinking/smoking/injecting drug x makes them a happier (and therefore more emotionally healthy), then who has the right to deem this inappropriate / morally reprehensible? Obviously the issue goes deeper than this when you take into account the potential issues with drugs such as addiction and health issues, but this should be for the individual to shoulder rather than being labelled as drug abusers. In essence, the point I am trying to get accross is that drugs should be used only to enhance your life but not define it. Whether this is through recreational use, medically supervised or otherwise is irrelevant.

If you asked some fully blown addict whether he's happy, he would probably say he isn't. But some regular folk high on ganja chilling with their friends, it would seem weird if you asked them whether they are happy because it is seemingly obvious.

Taking chemicals that disrupt your brain functions is the last thing you should be taking before coming to an ethical standpoint.

I believe we need to look at whether the benefits outweight the negatives in the case of drugs to determine their place in society. Morphine is a very powerful analgesic. It's also very addictive. Therefore it is tightly regulated and administered by a professional when they deem it appropriate. [quote]Anyway, so basic biochemistry tells us our concept of happiness is nothing but a drug anyway, so it pretty much ends the argument on the spot. I can't seem to figure out or construct a plausible response from the opposing party. I'd really like to find someone who actually holds this opinion and debate with them personally.[/quote] Let me have a shot then. Regardless of whether you believe emotions/feelings such as happiness are illusionary, the biological mechanism of reward does exist and it is designed to only work within certain constraints. When you mess with the reward mechanisms in our brain you also begin to mess with behaviour. People with unpredictable behaviour are not good for society. That's not to say that there is no empathy for outcasts but there is less sympathy for someone who voluntarily subjects themselves to this. Also, a nitpick point: Amphetamines cause the release of monoamines such as dopamine and noradrenaline but don't block uptake by neurons (cocaine does this). It's not released into the blood but at synaptic clefts. Also, amphetamines can be prescribed for Parkinson's and ADHD.

I'm not here to debate, just to learn. But aren't drugs like cocaine and LSD dangerous, even for first time users? I think I understand a lot about marijuana now, and fell confident about trying it, but I would like to learn more about why drugs are so hated.

[QUOTE='[CWG]RustySpannerz;33132807']I'm not here to debate, just to learn. But aren't drugs like cocaine and LSD dangerous, even for first time users? I think I understand a lot about marijuana now, and fell confident about trying it, but I would like to learn more about why drugs are so hated.[/QUOTE] LSD in regards to the actual damage caused by the drug itself is very small making it virtually harmless in that respect. The real issue with LSD is that it completely fucks with your mind and can cause users to do dangerous stuff while they're on it, like the people who are reported to have jumped out of windows while on it because they thought they could fly.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33132895]LSD in regards to the actual damage caused by the drug itself is very small making it virtually harmless in that respect. The real issue with LSD is that it completely fucks with your mind and can cause users to do dangerous stuff while they're on it, like the people who are reported to have jumped out of windows while on it because they thought they could fly.[/QUOTE] It doesn't "completely fuck with your mind" if you take it responsibly and in a controlled environment. People who take LSD and jump out of windows/do retarded shit only have themselves to blame, not the drug.

[QUOTE=Dark_Light;33133214]It doesn't "completely fuck with your mind" if you take it responsibly and in a controlled environment. People who take LSD and jump out of windows/do retarded shit only have themselves to blame, not the drug.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that that is the reason it's regarded as dangerous.

Yes, any drug is dangerous when given to a dumb fuck. And then there's some really dangerous drugs too, especially intravenous shit like heroin that narrows your veins down to zero.

I get what you're saying and yes it is a weird concept. Well I suppose it's only weird because it goes against social norms. I usually only think about it when I'm really high. Like why wouldn't I want to be high all the time? I function fine and I almost think that I'm more productive and I can see everything with crystal clarity.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33135562]Yes, any drug is dangerous when given to a dumb fuck. And then there's some really dangerous drugs too, especially intravenous shit like heroin that narrows your veins down to zero.[/QUOTE] From what I've heard, heroin will only kill you if you do something dumb.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33135827]From what I've heard, heroin will only kill you if you do something dumb.[/QUOTE] Injecting a lot of it will narrow your veins down to the point where they hardly even pass blood around. It's not pretty. That may not kill you, but at that point you are in a really, really bad shape. But obviously you wouldn't even give a shit at that point.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33135827]From what I've heard, heroin will only kill you if you do something dumb.[/QUOTE] heroin is some bad shit, and it will get you addicted after a few doses and eventually either ruin your life or kill you however lsd is one of those hit and miss drugs, my uncle became a schizophrenic through lsd use but i know people who do it kinda regularly and are fine

The hysteria around Ecstasy/MDMA always got me scared of it until I actually did real research. It is practically as harmless as cannabis. And taking 2 pills and listening to techno with headphones is like a life altering experience to say the least

[QUOTE=Aman VII;33138591]The hysteria around Ecstasy/MDMA always got me scared of it until I actually did real research. It is practically as harmless as cannabis. And taking 2 pills and listening to techno with headphones is like a life altering experience to say the least[/QUOTE] Of course depending on where you get it from, the pill you're taking may contain stuff that's a lot more harmful.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;33143347]Of course depending on where you get it from, the pill you're taking may contain stuff that's a lot more harmful.[/QUOTE] True. Didn't have any "filler" though it was just a pinch of what looked like sugar with brown tint in like 1/10 of the pill

[QUOTE=Aman VII;33145088]True. Didn't have any "filler" though it was just a pinch of what looked like sugar with brown tint in like 1/10 of the pill[/QUOTE] All pills/tablets will have some sort of excipient filler because taking a 10mg pill doesn't work. You probably won't be able to find out if they use the standard lactose podwer or glass shards. That's to say nothing about possible harmful byproducts left over in the synthesis.

I think its okay for people to do what they want as long as they don't bother me or my family because of it.

[QUOTE=napalm_bomb;33145410]I think its okay for people to do what they want as long as they don't bother me or my family because of it.[/QUOTE] How modest of you.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33135998]Injecting a lot of it will narrow your veins down to the point where they hardly even pass blood around. It's not pretty. That may not kill you, but at that point you are in a really, really bad shape. But obviously you wouldn't even give a shit at that point.[/QUOTE] That isn't heroin that's any drug used Intravenously [editline]6th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;33138245]heroin is some bad shit, and it will get you addicted after a few doses and eventually either ruin your life or kill you[/QUOTE] Don't know what you're talking about. I used it for a month then stopped and haven't touched it for over a year. The unfortunate people who get addicted to heroin are the same people who would get addicted to alcohol or smoking or anything, they are a byproduct of there not being enough support and education about safe drug use. [editline]6th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;33145388]All pills/tablets will have some sort of excipient filler because taking a 10mg pill doesn't work. You probably won't be able to find out if they use the standard lactose podwer or glass shards. That's to say nothing about possible harmless byproducts left over in the synthesis.[/QUOTE] You act as if pill chemists are wankers who would drive on the pavement to hit kids on the way to work. You know it's much easier to get a kilo of flour and use that as a binding agent that it is to smash up a window and grind it into powdered glass. Byproducts I can understand but if you invalidate them by calling them harmless, which by definition means consuming they wouldn't be a problem. [editline]6th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman VII;33138591]The hysteria around Ecstasy/MDMA always got me scared of it until I actually did real research. It is practically as harmless as cannabis.[/QUOTE] In moderation both are fine but neither weed nor mdma is "harmless" the first causes respiratory problems inherient with smoking anything (if you're vapourising or eating them in food then cool) and the latter is neurotoxic.

[QUOTE=Callius;33151399]That isn't heroin that's any drug used Intravenously[/QUOTE] Sure about that? I mean, they inject a lot of shit to people intravenously in hospitals. But anyway, doing, smoking or fucking firing up any nasty drug is very dumb in the first place.

Vaporising weed is indeed better than smoking it; smoke of any kind (including dry ice since that's CO2) is damaging to one's lungs and the passages that lead to it. If I ever did weed i'd go for the vapour instead of the joint.

[QUOTE=Bobie;33138245] however lsd is one of those hit and miss drugs, my uncle became a schizophrenic through lsd use but i know people who do it kinda regularly and are fine[/QUOTE] than it was likely that your uncle would have developed schizophrenia later in life, as it's generally understood it doesn't cause it, just brings it out in people who have it in the family/whatnot.