The Issue of Addiction
Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago to Legislation
Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead. He was not shot by a DEA agent. He was not killed robbing a convenience store in order to get money to buy drugs. He was wealthy, with a successful career.
John Belushi
Chris Farley
Heath Ledger
Only a handful of the many, many *wealthy* people who died, not because drugs are illegal, but because they are addictive. Not because of government oppression, but because of bad character.
Too often I hear advocates of drug legalization blaming the negative results of drug use on the "war on drugs" rather than on the user or the drugs themselves.
The suggestion that legalization would lead to less abuse, and therefore to less death and illness is wrong. Drugs are addictive, including gateway drugs such as marijuana and alcohol. The problem with addiction is that, unless something intervenes, the addict will require more and more of the addictive substance, to the point that, in one way or another, it kills him/her. In the meantime, it ruins his/her life.
Ledger was wealthy and successful. He had no problem gaining access to drugs. Because they were readily available to him, he chose to avail himself of them.
One might argue that I have the right to extend my arm, hand closed. But it would be disingenuous to argue that I have the right to do so past the point where my fist bloodies another's nose.
Heath Ledger had a little girl, Matilda. She's now growing up without a daddy. By Objectivist standards, either relatives, friends or strangers are forced to volunteer to raise her, or she can be left on the curb to fend for herself, freely, until she dies.
Others are paying for his decision to use drugs.
Drugs affect people's ability to make rational judgments. A drug addict will lie, will cheat, will indulge in other excesses. He will, above all, rationalize... irrationally.
I was once asked on here if I would advocate my own initiation of force, and I said yes. The example I had in mind, and nobody asked me to elaborate, was seeing a drunk coming out of a bar about to get behind the wheel of his car. Yes, if necessary I would initiate violence against him to keep him from behind the wheel.
In my opinion, when he chose to get himself into that state... not once he was in it, once he began the process... then he gave up his right to self-determination, since he was choosing to impair his judgment.
Yes, my criticisms of illegal drugs does extend to alcohol; but alcohol is a special problem because it was already an integral part of our society. And, I would point out, that in spite of alcohol being legal (but regulated), there are still bootleggers and moonshiners out there, making and distributing alcohol illegally. There's a reality show about moonshiners, and the one thing that becomes clear is that they are not moonshiners for the money. They choose to be moonshiners; that's how they choose to make their money. Deregulate alcohol, they'll still be there. illegalize it, they'll still be there.
Legalization is not the issue.
I know I'm critical of drug abusers, particularly marijuana smokers. I've not known anyone who was open about his marijuana usage that did not present him/herself as a bad imitation of Cheech and Chong, in their early movies together. Sloppy in their personal habits, careless in their work, untrustworthy in their word. Of course, this is a stereotype, and not every single living marijuana smoker is like this; I just haven't met the exceptions, yet.
The effects of drug abuse cost others, as well. There were movie projects in the works that had to be canceled or modified with Ledger's and with Farley's deaths. Other overdose "victims" had been in the middle of movies that had to be re-shot to deal with the absence of the star or major co-star. On a lesser scale, the same is true for many businesses. While I don't believe anyone "owes" their productivity to anyone, people who contracted to do a job, then impair themselves with marijuana so they cannot deliver the job in a quality and timely fashion, are costing those with whom their doing business, such as employers.
I might suggest that there can be compromise on the issue of legalizing pot, but everyone here knows that such things are the camel's nose in the tent. First legalize it so you can regulate it. Then don't regulate it. Then use it as an example and excuse to legalize (but regulate) harder drugs.
Anyway, I've said my piece. Discuss it amongst yourselves... or move on to more interesting topics.
John Belushi
Chris Farley
Heath Ledger
Only a handful of the many, many *wealthy* people who died, not because drugs are illegal, but because they are addictive. Not because of government oppression, but because of bad character.
Too often I hear advocates of drug legalization blaming the negative results of drug use on the "war on drugs" rather than on the user or the drugs themselves.
The suggestion that legalization would lead to less abuse, and therefore to less death and illness is wrong. Drugs are addictive, including gateway drugs such as marijuana and alcohol. The problem with addiction is that, unless something intervenes, the addict will require more and more of the addictive substance, to the point that, in one way or another, it kills him/her. In the meantime, it ruins his/her life.
Ledger was wealthy and successful. He had no problem gaining access to drugs. Because they were readily available to him, he chose to avail himself of them.
One might argue that I have the right to extend my arm, hand closed. But it would be disingenuous to argue that I have the right to do so past the point where my fist bloodies another's nose.
Heath Ledger had a little girl, Matilda. She's now growing up without a daddy. By Objectivist standards, either relatives, friends or strangers are forced to volunteer to raise her, or she can be left on the curb to fend for herself, freely, until she dies.
Others are paying for his decision to use drugs.
Drugs affect people's ability to make rational judgments. A drug addict will lie, will cheat, will indulge in other excesses. He will, above all, rationalize... irrationally.
I was once asked on here if I would advocate my own initiation of force, and I said yes. The example I had in mind, and nobody asked me to elaborate, was seeing a drunk coming out of a bar about to get behind the wheel of his car. Yes, if necessary I would initiate violence against him to keep him from behind the wheel.
In my opinion, when he chose to get himself into that state... not once he was in it, once he began the process... then he gave up his right to self-determination, since he was choosing to impair his judgment.
Yes, my criticisms of illegal drugs does extend to alcohol; but alcohol is a special problem because it was already an integral part of our society. And, I would point out, that in spite of alcohol being legal (but regulated), there are still bootleggers and moonshiners out there, making and distributing alcohol illegally. There's a reality show about moonshiners, and the one thing that becomes clear is that they are not moonshiners for the money. They choose to be moonshiners; that's how they choose to make their money. Deregulate alcohol, they'll still be there. illegalize it, they'll still be there.
Legalization is not the issue.
I know I'm critical of drug abusers, particularly marijuana smokers. I've not known anyone who was open about his marijuana usage that did not present him/herself as a bad imitation of Cheech and Chong, in their early movies together. Sloppy in their personal habits, careless in their work, untrustworthy in their word. Of course, this is a stereotype, and not every single living marijuana smoker is like this; I just haven't met the exceptions, yet.
The effects of drug abuse cost others, as well. There were movie projects in the works that had to be canceled or modified with Ledger's and with Farley's deaths. Other overdose "victims" had been in the middle of movies that had to be re-shot to deal with the absence of the star or major co-star. On a lesser scale, the same is true for many businesses. While I don't believe anyone "owes" their productivity to anyone, people who contracted to do a job, then impair themselves with marijuana so they cannot deliver the job in a quality and timely fashion, are costing those with whom their doing business, such as employers.
I might suggest that there can be compromise on the issue of legalizing pot, but everyone here knows that such things are the camel's nose in the tent. First legalize it so you can regulate it. Then don't regulate it. Then use it as an example and excuse to legalize (but regulate) harder drugs.
Anyway, I've said my piece. Discuss it amongst yourselves... or move on to more interesting topics.
I've personally experienced the damage that comes from abuses and addictions of alcohol, drugs, and immediate self gratification as well as that imposed by the state. The ravages to the life and well being of individuals and families is horrendous and destructive to everyone associated with the abuser and the addict. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that these things are true. There's no doubt either that the gateway for all of those individuals was the lack of an ability to think about tomorrow and their places in that tomorrow. The gateway drug for all of them was alcohol, not marijuana; some at an early teenage life and others in the 20's. The move to other drugs was the search for the ease of gaining the high, or low.
I've also learned throughout more than 30 years of striving as hard as I possibly could in every way that i could imagine with brothers, a wife, friends, and even a few employees that I couldn't stop or prevent, except for very short interludes, their self destruction. Some might call it slow motion suicide. Upon that finally and brutally recognized limitation, I finally took the step of removing myself from those situations and allowed those persons, that I still loved, to go ahead and live their lives as they chose without my interference. I gave up my pain, disappointments, excuses and explanations for, and most importantly, my anger. Each of them made their own decisions.
But, throughout all of those years (after turning 21), I used alcohol, marijuana, and tried one or two other types of drugs that I rejected after one exposure. And during that time, I was in a war, I obtained a BSEE from one of the toughest engineering schools in the nation (University of MO - Rolla) and later an MSEE. I worked as a design and project engineer and manager throughout the western US in highly technological industry, later going on to form and start my own business. I moved into the 1% for some of that time. By any measure, I was productive and gave much of value. The concept of only working 40 hours a week was totally foreign to me. There were times that I worked 19 and 23 days straight through a situation, sleeping on a table for short naps, and in my own business typically worked 60 to 70 hours every week.
At the end of the day, meeting a friend for a drink or two or three a couple of times a week, to shed the stress of the day and talk about other things than my work was a joy and reset that helped me be able to face the next day. Going home and taking a few hits of pot also added to that relaxation and helped to slow a mind full of thoughts and plans to address the needs of my work. A good giggle didn't hurt either. A bottle of good wine, shared during a meal turns that meal into more than simply feeding the body. The vast majority of people I've met and even worked with, were much the same.
But in all that time, I never had to have either the alcohol or pot. I'm the type of person that refuses to let anything or anyone control me or my decisions and choices. I don't think that I'm all that unusual nor simply lucky in my genetic makeup. But I've always had a high degree of self esteem, large goals, a love of learning, pride in accomplishment, and the search for challenges. Yet in all of those years, the state could have destroyed my life, my career, or my business. To what end? To what purpose/ To who's benefit or recompense? Who did I ever harm?
I started driving cars in 1957, I've driven all over this country - hundreds of thousands of miles and dozens of automobiles in every situation imaginable - yet I've never wrecked an automobile. I repeat, NEVER. I've been hit from behind at an intersection twice, neither was drunk. So your concern for stopping a potentially drunk driver from getting behind the wheel who's never harmed another with his automobile in 56 years of driving, seems to be a little over the edge. MADD taking over the NHTSB, has managed too accomplish what Prohibitionist were never able to do. Do you realize how little alcohol it takes to reach the .05 to .08 breath alcohol content.
So, in the richest, allegedly freest nation on earth and throughout history; the US has 5% of the planet's population, yet 25% of the planet's prison population, and 1 in 100 men have been or are in prison. For blacks, it's something on the order of 1 in 30 or 40. The vast majority of those numbers are for alcohol or drugs and without injury to another. The reason or cause; those of your ilk, MADD and other prohibitionists, and psychotic personalities that enjoy destroying another's life.
In my opinion, when he chose to get himself into that state... not once he was in it, once he began the process... then he gave up his right to self-determination, since he was choosing to impair his judgment."
I would not see that as an initiation of force on your part, rather acting to protect innocent people on the road from someone who has already initiated a type of force themselves by operating a vehicle impaired potentially killing themselves or others.
____
I am curious as to how your use of a few dead celebrities to make your point is different than Obummer using dead children to push his gun control agenda. No, I do not mean that guns are is the same as drugs. One has nothing to do with the other, but your tactics "smell" the same.
You also take these hardcore drug deaths and tie them in with marijuana users. This also seems to parallel the way the liberals tie the FBI stated 10,000 firearm deaths a year to modern sporting rifles, which by FBI standards are ALL rifles in the US are used to kill less than 400 a year.
Your goals are different than theirs, and I am by no means calling you a liberal, H. But it seems to me that your approaches are the same, and I am curious as to what the differences are as you see them...
For some drug related deaths that is the case. For others its a convenient and less painful way to end a life that is for some reason at that moment unbearable.
I don't think that everyone should be prevented from using marijuana (for example) because a few people use it improperly.
I don't think that everyone should be prevented from having a firearm because a few people use them improperly.
I think the War against drugs is wrong and causes much more harm via unintended consequences than legalization, e.g., turf wars, driveby shootings of innocent bystanders, imprisonment of thousands without an injured party at the cost of billions, immense increase in police powers destroying individual liberty.
Other laws restricting use of machinery (e.g., cars) while using marijuana are sensible. I think employers can provide evidence that use of marijuana while at work could negatively affect production and safety, and therefore are justified in restricting its use while employees are working.
Turf wars and driveby shootings, and that whole arena are a *cultural* problem, not a drug problem. Prohibition ended decades ago, but the mafia is still going strong.
Why do we send people to DC? Seems to have that effect, too. {grin};
I still think the drug war solution is worse than the problem it tries to solve. The great majority of people that use marijuana somehow manage a balance that doesn't prevent productivity and sometimes enhances creativity. Creating a giant repressive police state and prison industry to ban its use is an unforgiveable infringement on liberty.
I am not convinced that we should blame the use of drugs for lying and cheating any more than we should blame guns for murder.
As for the Mafia, they profit from prohibitions against liberty. Once it was alcohol. Now it's drugs. I don't see how they make your argument stronger.
America is supposed to be about finding better solutions through competition, and bigger central government programs (like the War on Drugs et al) have the opposite effect.
BTW, I have to say I really appreciate your contributions to discussion here in the Gulch.
I disagree completly with you assertion that there are people who can balance marijuana use and productivity. You can't be as productive while high on pot, any more than you can when drunk (full disclosure: my father once told me that back in the 30s-40s, a bricklayer could get fired if he stopped to light a cigarette, but a drunk could keep a bottle under the mortar board; he would lay faster (and far, far worse, even worse than illegals) when drunk, so they just put him on structural rather than decorative work, where his sloppiness wouldn't show).
I am working on a hypothesis that it may not be the marijuana that is entirely responsible for the lack of productivity, but the lack of character that would make one willing to use marijuana *also* contributes to one's willingness to be unproductive.
A friend and I were on our way into Burger King this morning when I mentioned to him that I had once again been considering eating a bullet. His reply was, "That's a permanent solution to a temporary problem."
The way the war on drugs is being conducted is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The solution, IMO, to the drug war is as follows:
Leave it to Beaver
Ozzie and Harriet
Andy in Mayberry
You can't raise children via Objectivism. They're not quite yet rational beings, and like animals are still more emotion driven than reasoning. You must raise them, as much as Objectivists may hate it, as totalitarians, guiding them to an understanding that they cannot consume more than they produce, that their happiness is their greatest morality... but that they must also respect the rights of others. That trading value-for-value is not only moral, but beneficial, and to shun the unearned, because that's where self-respect lies.
(I'm not one to judge, but I sigh whenever I walk past our break room, and hear the "clack-clack-clack" of someone wiggling the handle of the candy dispenser to get a quarter's worth of candy for free.)
So often I hear people justifying the pursuit and/or acquisition of the unearned by the morality of "if you can get away with it..."
That is the solution to the problem of drug abuse and drug trafficking, and most of the rest of our current societal problems, IMO. For 4 generations, almost, children have been raised increasingly in a moral vacuum; Timothy Leary's "If it feels good, do it" has won the day.
I agree, at least based on my experience and observation, but I guess my comments about the workplace didn't make it clear, that the balance I refer to is separating recreation and production.
I have no idea how far out of the mainstream workplace my thinking is though. I have been self employed for a long time.
"costing those with whom their doing business"
should read:
"costing those with whom they're doing business"
Sorry for those who broke teeth grinding them at the error.