Drugs and choice

Just another quick reminder that we're trying to keep this thread on topic i.e. not posting the pros and cons of drugs but sticking to the issue of choice.

Neither is it about whether drugs should be legal or not.

All these things are interesting, but, as we've already seen they result in going off topic and it would be better to discuss then on a new thread.

Ali-Bird, it sounds like you've got an interesting perspective, and the book sounds intriguing; maybe you could relate some of what it says to the issue of choice?

As we're on a new page I've cut and pasted the intial post below: -

quote:

---

Originally posted by onewheeldave:
In another thread about drug free spinning a few people said that taking drugs or not was a matter of personal choice.

I feel a little uneasy about applying that phrase to drugs as they tend to be addictive or habit forming substances.

i.e. they effectivly diminish or remove the ability to make choices. for example, someone who has never smoked can choose whether or not to light and smoke a cigarette, but someone who has a thirty a day habit and is severely addicted to nicotine no longer has that choice.

There are millions of smokers in the world who find it impossible to kick their habit, effectivley they have lost their ability to choose.

Whilst some drugs are considered non addictive, due to peer pressure and the pro drug marketing that is rife in our culture, choice is effectivly reduced.

I know that people shouldn't be influenced by such things, but humans are extremely suseptible to this- there wouldn't, for example, be so many drinks promotions if promotions didn't work.

The sad thing is that the young are most suseptible to this pro drug propaganda.

I was wondering what those of you who believe that taking drugs is a matter of personal choice, thought about this?

---

[ 11. September 2003, 00:53: Message edited by: onewheeldave ]

Apologies Onewheeldave, as I said I didn't have time to read the topic in full, I shall endeavour to stay on topic in future. Again, apologies if I repeat anything!

On the issue of choice - human beings make choices based on the information available to them, and based on the experiences of their peers - that is an unavoidable fact. Problems only arise when the information they are given is controlled, or mistaken.

Let's take a more innocuous choice, like what brand of cola to buy. We are bombarded constantly with messages (advertising) telling us one brand is superior to another, and broadly speaking if your peers opt for one brand, so will you. You make a choice based on the info available.

My personal belief is that the main problem people face right now is that the information we are being given about various substances (I won't call them drugs as that is in itself a prejudicial word and projects a negative image straight away) is at best flawed and at worst wildly inaccurate.

In my youth, I knew people who ended up sniffing solvents and on seeing what happened to them, avoided those people and their habits like the plague. I was happy to believe the line taken at school that "drugs are bad" and I should stay away from them.

Much later in life, I met people who took ecstasy and hallucinogenics through mutual friends. They "used drugs" in a wholly more positive way, gaining new perspectives and experiences and suffering (from what one can observe easily in the company of others) no ill effects.

This did not sit correctly with information I had been previously given, so I started researching for myself in science journals, on the internet and so on, in order that I could make an informed choice. Much of the information I found was conflicting with what I saw and what I read on more, erm, open-minded sites.

So, I decided the only correct course of action - the only logical "choice" - was to find out for myself.

This relates back to the book I mentioned inasmuch as human beings are naturally curious, and just because one party advises another not to do something (whether that's climb a mountain or eat a magic mushroom), doesn't mean another will not find a reason to try.

While flawed research (particularly into Ecstasy use), which is later disproved by other scientists, is published and continues to be the basis for lawmaking, young people in particular will continue to reject what the establishment claims is true and instead rely on the more tangible evidence of their friends and peers, making their own choice.

I fully believe that people should be given as much information as possible and then be allowed to make their own, informed, choice.

There's a bunch of other stuff attached to this to do with individual rights and expression but I won't bore you with it or go off the subject too far.

Hope at least some of that makes sense! Gotta get back to work right now but I shall pop back later, hope this is kinda food for thought.

I'm glad you brought up informed choice and the cola example.

What you're talking about is pretty much the concern raised in my initial post i.e. that peoples choice is influenced by marketing and peer pressure.

I guess I was focusing on the more insiduous aspects of marketing such as the fact that much of it isn't there to tell us ways in which a product is superior to it's rivals, but instead to associate it with irrelevant factors e.g. associating cola with sporting heroes.

The insiduous types of advertising/marketing do work, an example is the , now banned, subliminal type.

So, even though some people can see through marketing and be uninfluenced, the majority can't and end up buying a particular brand believing that they have chosen it, whereas, in reality, they have been influenced.

So, what do people reckon is the situation there? Are those people still making a choice. Or is this where we would say they're choosing, but it's not an informed choice? (maybe we could call it an 'influenced choice')

Before taking this further I just want to check if this sounds reasonable to everyone, as there is no point trying to relate this line of reasoning to drugs if everyone reckons that it's incorrect.

Itsgottab, I do believe that alcoholism and other addictions [i]could, in-part[i], be due to dysfunctions of the mind. Or instead of dysfunctios of the mind, say chemical imbalances. Like they use psychostimulant medications (amphetamines) to treat add/adhd by improving the function of chemicals in the brain that help regulate attention and activity (dopamine and norepinephrine).


British boffins have now invented a vaccine to prevent smoking, does this mean smoking is a disease??? And should ALL childern be vaccinated???