People refer to caffeine and alcohol as “drugs” and no one complains. What is it that makes them drugs? I imagine that this is because these things change a person’s heartbeat, thought processes, and similar things. Wouldn’t this also apply to sugar? Don’t school teachers complain about children on a “sugar high”? What’s the difference?
DISCLAIMER: Just so no one complains that I have a hidden agenda, let me state openly: Some people claim that it is hypocritical for marijuana and heroin to be illegal while alcohol is allowed, because alcohol is a drug too. My view is that everything is a drug, to a greater or lesser degree, and society has a responsibility to choose a cut-off point somewhere on that sliding scale. American society has chosen to put caffeine on the okay side of the scale, marijuana on the illegal side, and alcohol on the border (being legal for adults but not for children). I say that although we might disagree about where the line should be placed, there is nothing inherently hypocritical about having the line to begin with.
Sugar is just concentrated carbohydrate. I think the sugar-high has been disproved; extra sugar just makes most kids logy, IIRC, althogh certain kids can have a bad reaction to the sudden elevation in blood sugar. What chemical in sugar could possibly be a drug? Eating sugar will raise your blood sugar, which can change your mood, but you can do much the same by drinking a glass of OJ. A bagel would do the same, but slower, because of the fiber and complex carbs. If pure sugar’s a drug, I guess all foods would have to be.
I think a “drug” might be possibly defined as a non-food chemical that has mind or body altering effects. Caffiene is a drug; coffee is not. You can’t separate a chemical out of sugar that is non-food (since food can alter the body and mind from the effect of simply ingesting calories) but has mind and body altering effects, I think.
However…alcohol contains calories, so is it a food? And you can eat marijuana, although technically it’s the chemicals in marijuana that have the effect, not the carbs and fiber or whatever in the the plant. If pure alcohol contains calories, perhaps alcohol deserves an exception since it is a sort of food, although a food that inherently has powerful effects on the body and mind.
I really honestly do not mean to piss anybody off, but I really honestly from the bottom of my heart do not comprehend the meaning of this sort of expression. I admit that it is mundane to anthropomorphize. We all do it. All the time.
But isn’t there a danger when we lose sight of the fact that we are speaking in metaphors?
Society doesn’t have any responsibilities. It doesn’t have any rights. No needs. Nothing. It’s people who have these things. Individuals.
Forgive me, those who hate my speaking my mind, but I do not believe this very important distinction is at all trivial. That’s all I will say, and I will leave this thread now if that’s what y’all want.
Perhaps you could spin off another thread? I do not wish to speak for Keeves, here, and if he wishes to explore your point that’s fine by me. But the OP seems to be raising the questions: “What is a drug?” and “How do we determine which drugs are ‘bad’?” and I would like to explore this. My food/non-food distinction may be total bull; I think I’ll do some research. I think “Why should society decide which drugs are good or bad?” is a different topic.
Gau “peaceful honest people should be allowed to have brine shrimp in their vagina without government interference” dere
Keeves, I will go on the side of a drug. The way I am coming from it though, as I have heard that they have as Gaudy said, disproven that there is such a thing as sugar making children more hyper, but it is still addictive. Wow, that sentence is confusing. Let me splain.
I see a drug as something that is physically addictive, rather than emotionally addictive (i.e. gambling). Mary Jane and Cocaine and other such drugs are very addictive and not getting them causes violent reactions from the addicts. Alcohol is addictive, but not as much as some of the more dangerous drugs (okay first I am not greatly knowledgeable about drugs, second, I realize that dangerous and other such words are highly subjective) Alcohol still causes physical reactions when the addict does not get the alcohol, on down the line.
Now not all people get addicted to sugar. I personally am. I love sugar. At times if there was nothing sweet around and I wanted sugar, I would eat sugar straight. This has led to my weight problem today.
I think some people have addictive personalities. Sugar can just as easily be addictive to these people. Should we regulate it? No. Like Keeves said, society draws a line and I am reasonably fine with that.
Marijuana is addictive? I have not heard that this was true, beyond - wow that was fun, I want to do that again. Are there some studies that proved this or something?
Just to keep on the topic though - I’ve often wondered why some things are drugs and others are not. Is there a definition that the medical world uses, or is it just arbitrary?
PeeQueue
I think that you are totally missing the point against marijuna illegialization, or else have been told a mangled version of. It’s not that it’s hypocritical to draw a line; it’s that, once that line has been drawn, it’s hypocritical to ignore that line. I mean, just where is this “line” that alcohol and nicotine are on the safe side of and marijuana is on the unsafe side of? I haven’t heard of a single documentated case of someone’s death being directly caused by marijuana. Compare that to alcohol and nicotine, add the fact that alcohol and nicotine are addictive and mirijuana isn’t, and I don’t see how anyone can say that nicotine and alcohol are safer than marijuana. And therefore, for any “line” that alcohol and nicotine are on the safe side of, marijuana must be on the safe side of as well.
Yes, one may propose the opposite. I kind of figured you would Lib.
I also posted a lot of convoluted logic that had a least some basis on the OP, in addition to the aside you bring up. Your post was just about society not having responsibilities and such.
Hope I am not out of line. FWIW, I mostly agree with you Lib, I am just not sure I will go as far as you might on the legalization of drugs and the like.
PQ, I have no idea whether MJ is addictive or not. I have never partaken and only know one person personally who does partake and I do not talk to him about it (even if it was he would likely say it was not). My point was just about drugs in general. Again, I have no great knowledge about such things.
Lib:
I was not posting as a moderator, if you’ll notice, although I do not think an occasional request to a chronic hijacker to start another thread is out of line. The simple point is, I am tired of constantly getting into “why libertarianism is the only way to go and any other way is wrong, wrong, wrong” in nearly every thread, particularly when the OP is something I do want to discuss. Jeffery made a post that responded to the question in the OP: “Is sugar a drug?” and threw out a minor side point about regulation. If he had simply posted “All drugs, no matter how minor, should be regulated. Society needs to protect people from their impulses” it would have been approximately as off-topic as your post, and I would have seen it as a possible hijack–although you do have a well-deserved reputation for hijacks, which Jeffery does not, so I would likely not bother to say anything to him, even as a humble poster. I am simply posting my personal opinion here (and, alas, contributing to the hijack further, chancing turning this thread into another “Lib” thread), but you do tend to hijack threads and we’re not being unfair when we express a desire to you to stay on topic occasionally.
And now, back to the thread. If you wish to discuss it further, Lib, email me or start a thread in MPSIMS (or the Pit, since others may join in who are not so polite as I )
What do we want the word “drug” to mean? Obviously every substance has some effect on the body, however small, in some quantity, but if you label everthing a drug all the time, the word isn’t very useful! This is the meaning I normally intend when I call something a “drug”:
a substance put into the body to produce some effect in the body
I would consider sugar a drug if it were taken to produce an effect (for example, raising blood insulin level). Sugar taken to improve the taste of coffee wouldn’t count (although I suppose someone could argue that theoretically it produces a change in taste buds, brain, etc. which is the “effect” it was used for).
Similarly, caffeine is a drug if you take it to wake you up, but not if you take it for taste (although since it’s tasteless, you probably wouldn’t do that).
I don’t see how the issue of controlled substances, i.e. cocaine, has anything to do with it the definition of “drug”. Every DEA controlled substance I can think of is used as a drug.
Sugar is a vegetable. Sure sounds like speed, though:
1sug•ar "shu-ger\ noun [ME sugre, sucre, fr. MF sucre, fr. ML zuccarum, fr. OIt zucchero, fr. Ar sukkar, fr. Per shakar, fr. Skt sarkara; akin to Skt sarkara pebble — more at crocodile] (14c)
1 a : a sweet crystallizable material that consists wholly or essentially of sucrose, is colorless or white when pure tending to brown when less refined, is obtained commercially from sugarcane or sugar beet and less extensively from sorghum, maples, and palms, and is important as a source of dietary carbohydrate and as a sweetener and preservative of other foods
b : any of various water-soluble compounds that vary widely in sweetness and include the oligosaccharides (as sucrose)
2 : a unit (as a spoonful, cube, or lump) of sugar
3 : a sugar bowl
sug•ar•less -les\ adjective
)