fatherphil

yes, but some activities place us more indesposed than others. i know that when i decided to get high that the last thing i could be capable of doing for the next few hours was dealing in a lucid manner. i live my neighbor and know that if called upon he wopuld respond at a moments notice. but when he is getting stoned, his capabilities will be compromised.

why bring up excercise and sleep deprevation senarios unless you want to avoid the issue. add to that an employees obligation to their employer to bring there best self to the game without bringing undue damage to their short & long term memory during their off hours.

would you want to know if your private physician was a pot head?

christ-on-a-stick

Honestly, as long as he wasn't smoking up during office hours, I would judge him on his ability (obviously not knowing whether or not he was a "pot head") - and if I was happy with him and *then* found out he was, why would it make any difference to me???

fatherphil, have you been watching those silly "Marijuana - it's more dangerous than we all thought" commercials?

In all seriousness, I wouldn't care any more if my doctor smoked pot than if he drank whisky every night - if it didn't affect his ability to be my doctor. There are plenty of people out there who you might consider "pot heads" who are perfectly capable and productive professionals. The stereotypes that suggest otherwise are just that - stereotypes.

meritocrat

Consuming narcotics is NOT unethical in my view. A person has a right to 'mistreat' their body if they wil, since they possess sovereignty over their body.

Besides, if a person eats too much junk food, can that be considered immoral? After all, junk food is detrimental to one's health if consumed in great quantities on a regular basis, no?

Thalia

There are lots of things that effect our minds such that we are less able to help others. My dad works 3rd shift and sleeps all day. Parents with babies and small children lose sleep at night. People under great stress can have memory problems, lose some ability to drive. If a person is purposely lessening their ability to function in a situation (in whatever way, lack of sleep, intoxicants, whatever) when someone else is counting on them, then that is an issue. But I don't think anyone is expected to be awake, alert and ready for any kind of emergency 24/7.

I don't see why lessened functioning from drugs is different than from these other scenarios we are suggesting. Please explain.

fatherphil

the difference is comparing the unavoidable with the avoidable. people have little control over the need for sleep but their drug use is completely willful.

in some ways i think the functioning addict is more reprehensible that the "junkie" type which is typically looked upon with pity & disgust.

christ-on-a-stick

Firstly, you *seem* to be conflating drug use with being an "addict", but please correct me if I am wrong. You DO realize that drug USE does not necessarily = drug ABUSE or addiction, right?

In any case, even if for the sake of argument we *are* talking about someone who is a "functional addict" - why are they "reprehensible"?

I am just curious as to your reasoning for this position.

fatherphil

because, theoretically they have the ability to stop yet chose not to whereas the addict's ability to stop is beyond his control. the difference between addict and user is certainly more clearly defined than the difference between use and abuse though. the latter being almost a purely subjective call.

Philosoft

I used to stay out until 3 AM on weeknights, then go to work at 7 the next morning. And I'm not the kind who can subsist on 3 hours sleep. My point is, we do lots of things consciously that put us in less-than-ideal physical or mental condition. Where is the line of acceptable personal abuse and why does recreational drug use cross it?

Monkeybot

Godless Dave just stated that he is concerned with this.

If I have protected sex within a committed relationship, am I tacitly endorsing irresponsible, promiscuous sex? Maybe so, but is that my responsibility??? Hell no.

There were reasons other than concern over drug use for that -- essentially it was the colonialists' foot in the door of the Chinese economy.

How would smoking a bowl at 11 p.m., playing video games, staring at the wall, and then going to bed affect society significantly at all??? The most I can come up with is a possible rise in Bugles sales

Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting that everything I do should benefit society? That my individual desires and energies should at all times be put towards bettering everyone else's lives, without regard to my own pleasure or enjoyment?

This is tenuous beyond belief. I don't do drugs anymore and I still wouldn't be able to help my neighbor to the best of my ability every second of the day. I wouldn't have been able to help him today, since I was zombie tired from cramming for an exam. I would probably be "less than able" to help him now, since I'm extremely full from the sushi I just ate. I wouldn't be able to help him if I were drunk. I wouldn't be able to help him right away if I were in the middle of an orgasm, or taking a nap in the middle of the day, or any number of reasons. And besides, my neighbor has, you know, other neighbors he can ask for help if I'm not available right away.

Yes, it would be morally a good thing to help my neighbor if I were able. It would not, however, be a morally good thing for my personal freedoms to be restricted to such a degree that I was essentially "on call" every waking hour. Even doctors get breaks, for crying out loud.

Farren

I agree fully with the pro-drug use (as opposed to abuse) posts here. But I think everything I had to say on the issue has been said so this is just a me-too, i s'pose.