I mean, how can you actually put ANY coherent or logical thought into using something like heroin, meth, cocaine, crack or most of the other illegal drugs and then actually follow through and use it? Smoking’s much the same way- how do you actually think “Yeah… that thing is on FIRE… I think I’ll breathe in the smoke.”?
That’s the part I can’t get my head around; it’s just so overwhelmingly dumb. For some drugs like say… tobacco, meth or crack, the consequences are so dire, it’s just astounding to me that anyone can actually make a conscious decision to use them. Others, like pot or alcohol aren’t nearly as head-scratchingly dumb.
Don’t forget that the shame associated with addiction often leads to dishonesty as the addict tries to cover their tracks. I’m thinking of gambling addiction especially, but I’m sure lying is a habit all addicts become skillful in.
I agree. Even worse, that shame causes the addict to lie to herself, making it even harder to seek effective help. And that brings us back to the start of this discussion; labelling drug addiction as a moral failing just isn’t helping.
And bump, you assume that people who value themselves wouldn’t do something as stupid as the more destructive drugs. But you forget that many, many people are out to do something self destructive. Self-hate is a common symptom of depression, and depression will affect 20 percent of people over their lifetime. Suicide is the third most common cause of death in the younger male demographic. All those people will be attracted to something that has the dual attraction of making you briefly feel good and has the promise of self-destruction.
It doesn’t seem so dumb to me when you consider how painful human existence can be.
Momentary pleasures provide escape. And as it turns out, very few pleasurable experiences are entirely risk free. Indeed, there seems to be an positive relationship between pleasure and risk. The more pain a person tries to escape, the more intense the pleasure he seeks. An apple isn’t going to cheer up a severely depressed person. But an ounce of crack and a 40-ounce will.
Which begs the question. Which comes first: the pain or the experimentation that leads to the addiction which then causes pain? I think for most addicts, it’s a combination of the two. A teenager who takes that first puff of weed or gulp of liquor does so to avoid the pain of loneliness and social stigma (i.e, being “lame”). And from there, it grows.
Whenever I attend social functions, I’m usually surrounded by a ton of alcohol. People put gentle pressure on me to partake like everyone else, and because I’ve always been a bit resistant to social conformity, it’s easy for me to say no. In another universe, one where I’m more eager to please, I am an alcoholic like my father was, and like an assortment of relatives were before they died prematurely. I know that I am predisposed towards addiction without even having to test myself. Some people lack this awareness, and by the time they figure it out, it’s too late.
The problem is that it’s a “disease” that is a direct result of specific life choices. No one just wakes up one morning, goes to the doctor and hears “I’m sorry. You’re addicted to crack”. And they don’t exactly sell crack at the local Duane Reade. Which means to get addicted to crack (or other hard drugs) you need to socialize with the sort of people who have access to crack. When someone offers you crack, you have to say “why yes, I will partake in some crack.” And ultimately, you need to find someone who sells it and say to them “excuse me sir, could I purchase some crack”. All with the full knowledge that crack smoking is dangerous, unhealthy and illegal.
So an addiction itself is not immoral, knowingly partaking in an activity that is dangerous, unhealthy and illegal and likely to turn you into a useless asshole while forcing other people to deal with the economic and social consequences is certainly a moral choice.
Surprisingly, millions of Americans manage to go their entire lives without becoming addicted to something.
Problem is that in the aviation world, you often don’t.
A lot of diseases are like this, though. Diabetes, obesity, hypertension, heart disease…all of them are caused or exacerbated by specific life choices.
My mother has arthritis. It’s quite horrible. She’s also obese and has been this way all her adult life. If she would stop eating so much (and she does eat a lot), then maybe her arthritis wouldn’t be so bad. And then maybe she’d be able to get some exercise and make it even better. But she hasn’t been able to discipline herself to do either. So she suffers.
Even though I recognize that her lifestyle contributed heavily to her present situation, I still consider her health problems to be “diseases”.
If you drink regularly and you aren’t an alcoholic, maybe it is because you’re a morally upstanding person. Or…maybe it is because you aren’t as biologically predisposed to alcoholism as someone else who is, and your sobriety isn’t as much under your control as you think.
Evolution has done us no favors with regard to how much humans enjoy various drugs.
Our own bodies releases mind-altering substances constantly. I guess we should make sure nobody exercises because they could accidentally release endorphins or other neurotransmitters that alter their minds from the baseline when they woke up in the morning.
Given the likely percentage of adults that do drugs (prescription, legal, or illegal) versus the likely percentage that don’t, I’d say the definition of “reasonable person” includes drug use. It could just be caffeine, it could be prescription drugs, but surely the number of adults that have never done any drugs whatsoever is miniscule.
Also, sometimes your so-called obligation to be a reasonable person calls specifically for taking mind-altering substances that cripple your ability to interact with others. No reasonable person declines anesthesia and painkillers when having surgery, for example, and the whole purpose of taking them is to alter your mind to reduce the feeling of pain.
I agree…I think its far to complex an issue to even ascribe morality to it. Humans do some bad shit no matter what…drugs or not. Once some one has been doing hard drugs for years and years, brain chemistry seems to be permanently altered, and it becomes very difficult for them to function normally.
Some cultures believe that NOT taking “drugs” impairs your ability to interact in their society. Especially if you are having troubles within their culture. These societies used to use native plant remedies, such as peyote, ayahuasca, san pedro etc. to help the individual see the problem from a new perspective.
Modern times have given them the same host of addictive troubles as we have tho, (something the older remedies have trouble fixing)
I will add in the “self-medication” aspect. People with different types of depression, for example, will self-medicate to feel better. Sometimes it works and does not result in dangerous addiction, other times it results in a tragedy (like the Glee suicide) or worse (addicts stealing / killing / hurting others).
I self medicate with caffeine. I am not equating that to heroin, but I do know that it helps me with certain areas of my life.
I have a family member who self medicates for depression and stress with exercise. Very healthy, though he disappears for an hour to two whenever things are tense to go running.
Other family members need two fingers of gin to calm themselves down in the evening.
Those are all accepted addictions, with no moral finger pointing.
So as long as the addict is not directly impacting others - I see no moral failing. It is when their addiction begins to hurt others that I see an issue arise.
All I can say is that I used to overeat. Then I had a gastric bypass and my stomach was reduced in volume, which also drastically reduced the amount of ghrelin, a honger hormone produced by the stomach. Now my appetite is that of a slim person.
If overeating is a moral failing, it is strange that a surgery on the stomach has eliminated the problem.
Yeah, but the vast, vast majority of people who do smoke pot or drink liquor hit some kind of wall where they realize it’s one thing to fire up a doob and/or get drunk, and entirely another to whip out the crack pipe or heroin syringe.
Even if it’s self-medication, there still seems to be a sort of line in terms of drugs that people take between ones where addiction tends to take decades to wreck your life (alcohol, pot, tobacco), and ones where it takes a few months or years(crack, meth, heroin), and for the life of me, I can’t see how someone intentionally and consciously cross that particular Rubicon.
Is it a “That won’t happen to me” type situation? Is it knowing the consequences and just not caring? I don’t get it.
I guess I have a couple of problems with this discussion. First, there are so many reasons so many people engage in addictive behaviors, I think it unlikely that any one term will adequately explain all such cases.
But more significant is my issue with the word “morality.”
-I may think that addiction is an unwise choice.
-Or it may be a sign of any number of character shortcomings. If I consider someone “weak” or “stupid”, must I consider them immoral?
-Or it may be a manifestation of a genetic predisposition.
-Or it may be strongly influenced by one’s upbringing/surroundings/experiences…
-Or maybe a combination of those and other factors.
My personal impression of and reaction to each addict might reflect what I know about those factors and how they manage their addiction. But I can’t say that I necessarily or even generally equate “addict” with “bad person.”
Believe it or not, not everyone who takes a “bump” of something becomes an addict.
If you see your friends smoking, huffing, shooting, or whatever and they seem to be doing fine, then you’re going to assume the same for yourself.
And just because you’re an addict doesn’t mean your life is in shambles. If you can convince everyone around you that you’re functional, then it doesn’t matter how many drinks, pills, joints, or bowls you do. That’s why they say an addict has to hit rock bottom before they realize they have a problem. Self-delusion is a powerful thing.
I’m not talking about what happens after you start, I’m talking about why would you ever start in the first place? How does the train of thought derail into “Yes, smoking this crack rock is a good idea and something I want to do and choose to do.”?
Plenty of people do alcohol, pot and tobacco, but FAR fewer do harder drugs, and I don’t at all get how they decide that it’s a good idea and something they should do.
Its not a moral failing, but to what degree is drug use an attempt to cover for/compensate for psychic pain that existed before the person took drugs? I’m sure happy well adjusted people become addicts but don’t a sizable % of people who indulge in drugs start because it kills a pain inside they can’t deal with?
I don’t know why both conditions can’t exist side by side but the medical model of addiction defines it as a primary illness. In other words, it is not a symptom of something else.
In the case, for instance, of someone self-treating depression with alcohol to the point of addiction it is not good medical practice to assume that once the depression is treated the need for alcohol will automatically disappear.
I like the concept of treating addiction as primary because some may get caught up in looking for the hidden “cause” of their excessive drug use without discontinuing the drug use first. This makes it nearly impossible to deal with the co-existing condition. It becomes a vicious circle with the focus steered away from the chemical use (which is the first thing that needs to be dealt with barring life-threatening conditions.)
I prefer to believe that addiction is caused by a combination of pre-disposition and the repeated use of an addictive substance.
As far as it being a moral issue, I think a multitude of addicts when attempting to recover do see it that way for reasons already mentioned. And part of helping an addict is to help him make peace with feelings of guilt and/or inadequacy.
I’m going to assume that PSXer is not a drug addict. Some people can have a drop of alcohol or even other recreational drugs and handle it. Other people can not. The people who cannot control their drug use should be aware of that. And they should also be aware of where uncontrolled drug use ends up.
So if you can’t stop drinking after that first drink, don’t have that first drink. If you can’t stop taking drugs after the first hit, don’t take the first hit.