well yeah, but the increases in food preparation and clean water, as well as adding nutrients to foods we eat has helped us survive longer too and thats without aid of drugs.
You consider vaccines to be drugs?I don't know, people didn't have high fructose corn syrup clogging their arteries back then. And I guess it doesn't matter how good your food is, if you're dying of smallpox or polio.
I personally think that anyone who uses "any substance" to make themselves feel better has willpower issues and should look at themselves why they need an artificial substance to make them feel good, be happy, be stronger, etc...
I also don't care if people use it as long as it doesn't effect other people. Now that is the million dollar question...
This is kind of my take on it.
Personally I have a hard time respecting people who use recreational drugs as a means to be happier/reach a different level/mellow out/any other emotional reason. Because it is possible to achieve that stuff without any of it - it's just a longer road to see sometimes how to do that - it's all mental/emotional, anyway.
But yes, like you, I've been guilty of the same with alcohol. And perhaps through my experience that's why I am now more critical of those who partake in regular recreational use of anything. Drank considerably back when I was 19-20, and it WAS fun. But I was also using it as a 'crutch'/shortcut to ease up anxiety and for other emotional/social reasons. When I really realized all of that, I cut myself off for nearly a year and am now very careful about my motivation when it comes to drinking.
Personally I have a hard time respecting people who use recreational drugs as a means to be happier/reach a different level/mellow out/any other emotional reason. Because it is possible to achieve that stuff without any of it - it's just a longer road to see sometimes how to do that - it's all mental/emotional, anyway.
It is biased. It's an opinion. The idea of being dependent on any substance is a weakness as far as I'm concerned.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.
It is biased. It's an opinion. The idea of being dependent on any substance is a weakness as far as I'm concerned.
Am I weak because I need water to survive? That's not much different than what you're saying. Humans are a social species. Humans, as a species, don't need drugs to survive, only a subset of the species requires them (or at least believes they do).And being dependant on people to be happy isn't a weakness? (saying it's "normal" doesn't negate that it's a weakness, BTW)
You can take this question in any sense you wish, but about all psycho-actives collectively.
Drugs have certainly had a big effect on human history--economically, politically, artistically. Lives have been lost over them, lives have been changed by them. Is it arguable that drugs may have been a positive experience in the long run, in that they teach us something about ourselves?
Am I weak because I need water to survive? That's not much different than what you're saying. Humans are a social species. Humans, as a species, don't need drugs to survive, only a subset of the species requires them (or at least believes they do).
I'm no more dependent than other homo sapiens, which is fine with me. You are more dependent. You have less control.Yes, you are weak. You are dependant. My point here is that it's an insignificant claim to say "You're weak because you need beer to loosen up"... because you're basically saying, as you adequately put, that the person is human.
Actually, I think drugs are fine. Most of them are very beneficial to mankind.Drugs are bad, m'kay?
You consider vaccines to be drugs?