No. By that definition I can’t see how drugs are “bad”. If I said drugs are bad I would also be saying medicine that has a physiological effect is bad. I dont see how anyone could reasonably say that.

I agree completely. A person that is prescribed anti-anxiety medication to help with anxiety is equivalent to a person who uses amphetamine or ecstacy to enjoy his/her life more or to distract themselves from emotion pain.

Let's group together traditional medicinal drugs prescribed by an authorized health professional to help with an ailment and recreational drugs taken primarily for pleasure for a moment.

These are simply substances. They just exist. Unless in their existence they cause some sort of detriment to their surroundings, I would say not. Now as far as ingesting them or introducing them into your body. That depends.

Say you taken an aspirin for a headache and it fulfills it's intended purpose wonderfully. One would call this good. Now say you mix it with alcohol and you end up vomiting and damaging your stomach. Not so much right?

If a drug fulfills it's intended purpose without introducing either short or longterm adverse health or other effects few would say this is not good. That said few would argue that dependency or addiction is bad and depending on the substance the risk of this may be significantly high.

For example I know of a few people who have overdosed from drugs. Some fatally some not. These were mostly recreational. If the intent was to reduce emotional pain in general if the person overdosed and they have loved ones who in turn grieve the intended purpose was not fulfilled and so is bad. Take fentanyl for example. I know someone going through chemo who says it makes him feel great. Because the appropriate dose was prescribed and followed. He knows someone who also took fentanyl, perhaps incorrectly, and is no longer alive.

Beyond all that say you have a business to run and not just your livelihood but those of your employees as well that depend on it. Say you start getting high all day and fall behind, later going bankrupt. This would be bad.

In a sentence I'd say it depends if it fulfills it's intended purpose without adverse longterm effects ie. if you do not become dependent, addicted, damaged physically or mentally, or use it as a crutch.

It's like water. It can quench a thirst or it could drown you.

Well put! Unfortunately lots of people here in Netherland are dependent on benzodiazepines. They estimate even more than people on alcohol. There is an overlap of course that have dependency on both. Still I find this disturbing because 99% think it is all right and does not damage them. Possibly because it is medication. Trust me, kicking off benzos is hell and dangerous. Whereas speed, cocaine and heroin is harnless to quit.

My point: there is a distorted view on drugs. You get benzos from doctors people are naively taking them without reading the manual or internet.

No one els?

No one els? — ttjordy

Post benzo user here. Almost died from the back seizures.

I feel you.

I had epilepsy with convulsion. Officer found me on the ground I screamed to people for help, no one replied….

I had epilepsy with convulsion. Officer found me on the ground I screamed to people for help, no one replied…. — ttjordy

I had a psychotic trip and the pain was so bad I had to go to the hospital for a morphine shot. I was 5150'd by the Police and put in a holding cell for 3 hours, which were probably the most excruciating of my life.

A person that is prescribed anti-anxiety medication to help with anxiety is equivalent to a person who uses amphetamine or ecstacy to enjoy his/her life more or to distract themselves from emotion pain. — ttjordy

I’ve been prescribed anti-anxiety medication in the past and have also had ecstasy. The latter may have played a part in the former, now that I think about it. Anyway, it’s interesting that you see an equivalency. Given that you know an anti-anxiety prescription implies a rather sever degree of stress/suffering, it seems to suggest that you use recreational drugs at least primarily to temporarily escape emotional pain.

Definitely, one uses medication to ease up on the anxiety. Others use amphetamine as to escape from emotional pain. I see no difference.

I know this discussion is old but it is a good question indeed.

No. I personally drugs or pharmaceutical pills are not a problem. Society is. Most of us will end up consuming accepted and approved drugs as Prozac or melatonin. Probably some members are even already taking it. It is our duty to erase the old taboo about consuming those. Like how we do not do so? We are forced. Life is fulfilled of a weird existentialism. There is a lot of uncertainty out here. When Covid crisis would end? Will I pass my exams? This modern era is facing a lot of problems and dilemmas which do not have a quick solution. Keep living when you do not see the goal is difficult.
There are people who literally need some drugs to avoid dangerous acts as suicide. So, what if these drugs approved by pharmaceutical companies or organisations have the main goal to keep us moving forward? Probably without it, there will be less productive people. We even have a problem of shortage.
As of 2002, seven countries (USA, UK, Italy, Australia, France, Spain and Japan) use 77% of the world's morphine supplies, leaving many emerging countries lacking in pain relief medication.
I would sound so wacky but having drugs in your local pharmacy should be an international protected right.
This is the society context we have to face.

If, as an old friend wrote to me this morning, "addiction is the devil", then "god" really is a concept by which we measure our pain. Another OD apotheosis ... :death: :flower:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58470253

Damn, he was a powerful actor.

I think that one thing we have to remember about all drugs, illicit and prescribed is that most substances come with some potential side-effects. Some people experience them and others don't, but I know that if I ever get any tablets from a doctor, there is usually a list of some so terrible that I end up wondering if I really need take them at all. Usually, I don't notice any, but some people have ended up with some side-effects that are possibly worse than the original sickness.

As far as illicit drugs are concerned, it is hard to generalise and it possibly gdepends on the context and extent of use, as well as individual factors. However, I think that making some drugs illegal can create an unhelpful underground, affecting the people who are desperate to experiment in a negative way. Some get sold dangerous stuff because it is not monitored. Also, there was the whole development of 'legal highs'. I tried a few and got on fairly okay with them. However, I knew a few people who had really bad experiences, including someone who ended up fighting for life in intensive care. I believe that most over the counter selling of these substances is outlawed now, in England, at least.

I am left wondering what people will be able to turn to for experimentation. Perhaps, the path of Van Gogh remains an open legal possibility, as absinthe remains a legal option.