Overall, are drugs good, or bad, for people?

[Clownmaster]

the OP is about psychoactives, not all drugs in general. some vaccines and general medications are psychoactives though, dextromethorphan, the stuff in robitussin for example is a dissociative that causes a distorted feel to reality at higher doses.

Lets get back on topic people, this isn't just about illegal drugs

 

[ajblaise]

The thing about recreational drug use is that there are functional users and nonfunctional users. People seem to assume they are all in the latter camp. And of those functional users, a good portion will tell you it's overall a positive in their lives. Some of those people are wrong, but a lot have perfectly logical reasons to believe it's a positive. There is no way to objectively know.

Also, unlike medicine, recreational drugs can't take all the credit for their nonfunctional user's pain. If the drugs weren't there, many would have simply found another way to escape/block out pain/relieve boredom... and then there's the possibility that the activity would be not only self-destruction, but could directly harm others.

 

[kelric]

I'm not counting responsible, supervised medical uses (pretty clearly a good thing), so in general I'd say no, that overall psychoactive drugs are not good for people. I think that some *can* be used responsibly (ie, casual use of small amounts of alcohol), and some are unquestionably more destructive than others (methamphetamine vs. marijuana), for the most part I see recreational or "expanding the mind" drug use as a pretty bad idea.

Alcohol's sort of a strange case... when used in excess it's as bad or worse than many restricted drugs, but obviously many people use it without trouble, and have throughout most of recorded history. But I don't think that example can be extended to other drugs.

 

[cascadeco]

What's the significant difference betwen achieving a desired level of neural activity through proximal stimulii factors (drugs, excercise) versus distall sitmulii (people, scenery, prayer)? especially if you concede that it's all "mental/emotional" anyway... what's the big deal between using a chemical as a crutch vs. using personal interaction as a crutch? sounds like a bias to me.

And what if they can't get what they need from the latter? Fuckups like myself can't be happy or properly stimulated when around people, animals, kids, whatever it is you do - all I think about is "I need to get the fuck away from these people so I can think." The only thing(s) that have let me take flight with my theories and concepts has been alcohol and weed. Excercise helps, too, but I've never been around a group of people and gotten any of the intellectual revelations I need as an INTP when around people.

As Lateralus commented, it's an opinion. So in that sense, of course it's biased.

I don't know if you're using social interaction and being around people as an example of one of many other 'crutches', or whether you really think I think being around people is what makes me or everyone else happy or intellectually stimulated or in a nirvana-like zen state. Because I don't think that -- being around people is low on the list for me in terms of what yields an *internal* peace and inspiration and being happy and all of that - most of it comes from within - my own perceptions.

I don't think drugs/alcohol are necessary ingredients for people to be able to achieve things out of life and be happy. However, I think it's quite alluring. It can be a shortcut, at least in the short term.

Is it inherently 'bad' to take shortcuts? Now that's a matter of opinion. I could see it being argued both ways. But I think it becomes a bit more alarming/sad when the user actually believes he cannot survive or be happy or <insert whatever other phrase you want> without it.

But that's the negative slant of it -- when someone's using said drug to fill in something lacking in their life, or to distract themselves from something else looming in their life, or numb any issues they might have. I suppose if someone is extremely happy from the get-go without needing the drug, then using the drug now and then could be a good, not-so-bad, or neutral, thing.

 

[Anentropic IxTx]

They're interesting, but best to be avoided. One can achieve similar effects just mentally, although for most... Let's see where we are in a few centuries.

 

[Steve_The_Cat]

Drugs are bad; they killed Brendan's gorgeous avatar

 

[dga]

We can thank the use of drugs for basically all of the art, music, cinema, prose, and many other creative endeavours in the world.

I don't need drugs. They are simply sometimes fun and offer a different look at the world. if anything, I compare something like lsd to sex. If you'Ve never done it, you simply cannot say what would be a better substitute, can have not experiences which are not so great, but are definitely a changed person afterwards.

 

[Anja]

We can thank the use of drugs for basically all of the art, music, cinema, prose, and many other creative endeavours in the world.

I don't need drugs. They are simply sometimes fun and offer a different look at the world. if anything, I compare something like lsd to sex. If you'Ve never done it, you simply cannot say what would be a better substitute, can have not experiences which are not so great, but are definitely a changed person afterwards.

I'm thinking that it wasn't the use of drugs which caused the creation of those things, dga. More likely it is a drug user who would prefer removal from social obligations which didn't satisfy their creative nature.

Certainly a drug user is more prone to navel-gazing than brick-laying.

Even if it's a nude model's navel. Hee.

 

[dga]

what do you mean by removal from social obligations? Musical artists, dancers, and actors perform in front of audiences. Dock Ellis pitched a no hitter on acid in a major league baseball game.

It's not that anyone needs drugs to create

 

[dga]

They're interesting, but best to be avoided. One can achieve similar effects just mentally, although for most... Let's see where we are in a few centuries.

how can one know whether effects are similar without getting high? Humans have been experimenting with substances for as long as we could walk upright.

 

[Anja]

It's not that anyone needs drugs to create

Okay. Sounds like we're on the same page then.

The way you worded it sounded like the drug use was what we needed to thank for the people's creativity.

 

[LucrativeSid]

In my own experience, drugs were fun. I guess having fun is good for your health in a way. Of course, I quit doing them years ago because I think there are far more negatives than positives. I've also watched lives be ruined and completely ended by them.

 

[The Decline]

No one can reasonably argue the ethical good or bad of a blanket category of "drugs".

 

[Fluffywolf]

In my opinion bad. But it has to do with what I find important and not important. For me, keeping a clear head is most important.

Plus, I've done a lot of different drugs when I was younger and that didn't help me one bit. So why bother.

 

[The Decline]

Allow me to create an antithesis to this thread's original aim: I'll roughly dissect the generalized group of "psychoactive drugs" into a separated list, where I will place judgments on their moral values towards society and individual humans (historically and potentially).

Opiates - good when controlled for medicinal use, terrible in almost every other case otherwise.

Alcohol - good when in very moderate amounts, terrible when it's the only societally-endorsed recreational drug.

Marijuana - good in moderate amounts to spur creative and progressive thinking, slightly bad when users are oppressed.

Psychedelics - very good for personal growth and therapy, bad when used incorrectly

Amphetamines - good if you want your kids to become drones and your jet fighter pilots to be sharp, pretty terrible otherwise

Cocaine - same as opiates.

Dissociatives - great for anesthesia and a strange sense of psychedelia, but slightly addictive

Tobacco - not many positives

Medicinal herbs - very nice

Nootropics - great brain stimulants, especially if a plant extract


Overall most of the negatives from "drugs" come about due to a few overarching themes: addiction, societal oppression, and misuse. Personally, I believe that if society came to a point where it could embrace psychoactives for what they are and what they can provide, then the risks can be minimized in every respect. Controlling certain drugs, such as unnaturally refined opiates, amphetamines and cocaine, should be a concern, but also the allowance of psychoactive use recreationally and spiritually should certainly be allowed for the general population. I truly believe that the rampant chaos caused by alcohol is a result of oppressing many safe avenues of psychoactive drug use while allowing but one traditional, yet potentially deadly and chaotic form to be used.

 

[phthalocyanine]

why not "Marijuana - good when controlled for medicinal use" ?

 

[The Decline]

why not "Marijuana - good when controlled for medicinal use" ?

Oops, good point.

 

[BlueinGreen]

No one can reasonably argue the ethical good or bad of a blanket category of "drugs".

Agreed. It matters A LOT which drugs we're talking about and how they're used by whom.

 

[murkrow]

Drugs are not evil.

 

[FDG]

If it wasn't for modern medicine, we'd all be dead by the age of 40.

Just on that note alone.. drugs FTW.

Actually this is not true. What truly lowered life expectancy, in the past, was the fact that many people died as early infants/children. However, if you made it past 30, the likely age of death was around 70.