We´ve all heard of the notion of a “social drinker” or a “social smoker”. In my expiriences social smokers turn out to become full-time smokers 90% of the time.
Eitherway, the basic idea behind drinking and smoking (initially anyway) is to have fun and to enjoy the moment more.
There is an obvious line in which “fun” can turn to dependance and dependance can lead to addiction.
Most people do not pass this line, but they can have a couple of drinks to enhance the pleasure of the moment.
The same, I believe can apply to illegal drugs. Marijuna to stronger drugs like LSD, Ecstcay and Cocaine can all, at one point or another, be used to have fun, enjoy the moment, etc. Of course, there are varying degrees of harm to each drug, but the concept of “fun” and “pleasure” are still there.
There are some who argue people should not use ANY substance because the fun it adds is merely superficial and will only lead to harm. People are better off being substance free, and having healthy free time.
This brings me to my question:
When is OK to use substances for fun?
What is your point of view for substances in general?
Whenever you want, as long as you don’t harm anyone else in the process. (Other people being upset that you did it does not qualify as “harm”. Neither do a lot of other commonly-cited indirect effects, but I won’t get started on that just yet.)
My point of view for substances, and more or less anything else, is this: do what you want as long as the only one directly affected is you. Further, if you willfully alter your mind, anything you do while in such state is considered a willful action (i.e., smoking crack and beating the shit out of your wife = beating the shit out of your wife, regardless of whether you’d have done it sober).
From a personal standpoint, I’ll add that the only drug I’ve ever used is alcohol, and that I don’t think recreational drug use (including alcohol) is a good idea in general…but, while I’d gladly provide my reasoning for that if someone were to ask me, I don’t have the right to enforce my conclusions upon others.
I’m pretty much in agreement with Roland, use what you like when you want but realize that when you use any kind of substance that you do not become the substance. It’s not the booze or the coke or the amphetamines that do stupid fucked up stuff, it’s you under their influence.
I tend to agree thus far with one more stipulation. Do not do anything that will cause undue embarrassment to anyone with whom you’re associated. If you get drunk at the neighbours dinner party and puke on their rug it also directly affects your spouse, assuming that’s who you went with. (No, I’m not speaking from personal experience!)
It’s okay when you’re in a safe environment (with lots of drinking water and dry places to sit down), with good “substances” and trustworthy people.
Keep in mind that there is often a reverse correlation between the fun you *have *while taking drugs, and the fun you *ARE *while taking drugs, especially to people who aren’t taking the same drugs (and often to those who are).
In other words, it’s extremely context-dependent. Lots of times, taking substances can (a) make you act like a total dick, while simultaneously (b) making you less able to appreciate the undeniable fact that you’re acting like a total dick. Some drugs are worse for this than others, but most of them make you anti-social to one degree or another.
However, if you’re in a safe environment with people (and substances) you trust, the effect can be quite the opposite.
I generally agree with all of the above as well. I’ll add a personal rubric that helps me figure out when I’m veering into abuse territory: when I imbibe hoping to recreate the past, instead of enjoying the present. That is, if I remember a really great party where I was smashed, and I decide to drink hoping to recreate that great experience, I’m likely to be disappointed. I’m also likely to try it again and again and not reach that peak again, and that, to me, is a cycle of abuse.
If, on the other hand, I decide to drink because I’m enjoying it in the present, no harm no foul. It doesn’t trigger that “trying” cycle or the depression and anxiety that accompany it.
Your mind and body to fuck up or discard however you see fit - provided you don’t harm others. You are responsible for actions while “under the influence.”
I’d say Leaffan’s stipulation is nicely covered under “anything you do under the influence is a willful act, regardless of whether you’d do it sober.” Which is the rule I prefer to live by–if you can drink or do coke or lick frogs without being a dick, I don’t care whether you do whatever drugs you do. Conversely, there are people who puke on my metaphorical rug while out with their metaphorical spouse while stone-cold sober.
I think it’s the individual’s right to pollute themselves anyway they see fit but perhaps the cost of intoxicants/substances should reflect their overall social costs, ie sin taxes and the like.
If you’re going to be stupid, at least be smart about it. By that I mean I think it’s OK to use most drugs as long as you’re in a safe environment, aware of and minimizing the risks, and ready to take responsibility if shit hits the fan.
It’s a hard concept for some to handle. I tell people “the problem was never the dope. the problem was ME”. (recovering addict) I am an addict. I cannot take anything because bad stuff will ensue.
I’m a big believer in personal freedom. If you want to use the stuff, knock yourself out. But you are responsible for what happens if you do.
If they make you behave like a dick or worse, within your social circle, fair enough! But not everyone does, and the ones that don’t shouldn’t be made into criminals!
And FTR I agree. Legalize them and tax them like cigarettes and booze. Something is going to have to pay for this financial goofery that’s going on right now, and dope is the mostly likely candidate for something that’s going to be able to do it. It’s no so much tacit approval of the government than it is tapping into a giant revenue stream.
If we as a country are going to spend 100 million dollars a year on coke, at least let Uncle Sucker get a few lines.
Using substances for fun is a pretty grey area. Most teens/young adults will experiment with alcohol, pot, other non-hard drugs. Most will spend the rest of their lives not addicted to any of these things, and will probably taper off on using any of these because of growing up. There are some, though, that will get addicted, and it will ruin their lives. Do you try to keep everyone from trying alcohol because some will get addicted? That’s not going to happen, and it didn’t work, anyway. Ideally you want people to be self-monitoring; if you aren’t doing right on the drugs, don’t do the drugs.
I don’t know much about experimenting with hard drugs. I have heard that cocaine and heroin are fantastically addictive. It seems to me that experimenting with very addictive substances is not a good bet (including smoking).
I don’t know about that, I think that certain hard drugs are fantastically addictive to people predisposed to having that particular center of their brains jacked up and given to being addicts. Some of them will never know that they’re cokeheads because they’ll never try coke for whatever reason. Others will latch onto that drug like a drowing person does oxygen.
If it’s by street drugs, legal drugs like caffine and nicotine and booze or by pharmicuticals, everyone who is a “user” ultimately finds the combo that they “need”. Some certain segment of the population will always self medicate. The only really bad bet is by allowing a black market to thrive which directly endangers everyone else due to rampant crime associated with the distribution and obtaining of those things and also the users health due to adulterants.
Depends on your definition of “harm”…I should have been more specific. I’m talking intentional direct effect, which I require in order to make moral judgement on an action. Others’ emotional reactions to your own decisions don’t qualify. This is as markedly opposed to an ethical or personal judgement, which can (and, I’d emphatically argue, should!) take the feelings of others into account…this being what keeps us from acting like complete jackholes on a day-to-day basis, even when we might be factually or morally correct.
The abstract behind this is kinda at the core of my whole belief system, which makes it hard to explain without A) going on for ten pages and B) sounding like a tedious wanker, so I’ll leave it at that unless further explanation is requested. (I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing, though, so feel free to shoot me a PM.)
“Others’ emotional reactions to your own decisions don’t qualify.”
That’s not always the case. If your drug/alcohol use is creating conflict and harm in your relationship with your loved ones, then I would humbly disagree with the above statement.
This is not about someone choosing to drink or smoke the weed-out or suchlike. It’s about the havoc that alcoholics and dope fiends wreak amongst their families. Big difference between the two, but your language in the OP was vague enough that I felt the need to add my caveat.
And of course if you are not in a relationship or close to your family, the original statement has more resonance no matter what the circumstance.
I would add that it needs to be consistent with maintaining any responsibilities as a parent or employee, and that if someone is dependent on others (e.g., taxpayers, family members who don’t agree with your choice) for support, the choice to use is pretty hard to defend.