Everybody's Uncle,
I came across your website among several others while searching for advice columns. It seems to me that you mostly give reasonable, rational advice to people who are in desperate need of it. However, I came across one item in your archives, which I found disturbing, namely, that you categorized "drug use" as something that is "inherently harmful", or something of the sort.
Granted, I am rather young (23) and may simply represent relaxed morals among my generation, which is what people my parents' age tend to say when I attempt to bring up this topic with them. But I feel very strongly that drug use (as opposed to abuse, which is almost always harmful to the user and/or the user's loved ones) is not inherently harmful, and I wondered if a reasonable, rational -seeming person such as yourself might explain to me the logic behind such a position.
I do not under any circumstances condone the horrible things that drugs to do people. I sympathize with innocents who have been harmed in the horror of the crack epidemic; I feel genuinely sorry for parents whose children steal from them to buy drugs, and I condemn any of the other widely-publicized extremes in which drug use can result.
But alcohol can also result in these things and worse, as it tends to lead to domestic violence. Does that mean moderate alcohol use should be prohibited? Of course not.
I have been a recreational drug user for five years of my life. During those five years, I have graduated with honors after a four-year college career, embarked on a successful marriage, successfully relocated across the continent, and found a secure and stable job. If anything, occasional drug use has helped me to relax or get perspective during some of those major changes. In no way have I been harmed by them, and my friends tend to be people with similar experiences.
Historically, many cultures have ritualistically used many types of drugs for therapeutic and religious purposes, without harm to the individuals involved or to the fabric of the society.
As to the physical dangers of drug use, there is a wealth of data supporting either side of that debate; also, the lengthy list of possible side effects that accompanies TV drug commercials should prove that even a generally helpful substance can have some unpleasant effects as well.
I do not necessarily expect that this letter will be printed on your site as it deals with a controversial topic and is somewhat lengthy. But if you have time for a personal response, I would appreciate one. You seem like a person of reason, yet I see no logic in your universal condemnation of the drugs that are currently illegal in today's society. I am always interested in seeing the "other side" of issues, however, and because of my faith in your intelligence am curious as to your reasons for holding the views that you express about drug use. Almost anything can be dangerous in the wrong hands, Uncle, but that doesn't make drugs "inherently harmful".
Sincerely,
Not an Addict
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Not an Addict:
I will respond to your inquiry [line for line].
I came across your website among several others while searching for advice columns. It seems to me that you mostly give reasonable, rational advice to people who are in desperate need of it. However, I came across one item in your archives which I found disturbing, namely, that you categorized "drug use" as something that is "inherently harmful", or something of the sort.
[Thank you for your assessment of my advice as "reasonable, rational." I differentiate between drug use and drug abuse. Drug use tends to be legal and prudent. Drug abuse leans toward illegal and/or imprudent. Neither is inherently harmful; either can be imprudent.
Your weak word is "disturbing," it volunteers an emotional element in your position. Our laws and a majority of people may be disturbed by opinions like yours, but emotional arguments, as I am sure you are aware, dance endlessly in illogical circles. Emotions can enhance a good argument but falter as a foundation.]
Granted, I am rather young (23) and may simply represent relaxed morals among my generation, which is what people my parents' age tend to say when I attempt to bring up this topic with them. But I feel very strongly that drug use (as opposed to abuse, which is almost always harmful to the user and/or the user's loved ones) is not inherently harmful, and I wondered if a reasonable, rational -seeming person such as yourself might explain to me the logic behind such a position.
[If you submit that you reflect relaxed morals, why not aspire to the high road? As a young man, why not give your parents some points for the wisdom they have acquired over the years? The fact that you are "disturbed" and "feel very strongly" about recreational drug use carries little weight in an argument seeking logical conclusion. Emotions used as foundations are easy -pickings for an experienced debater. Your parents love and concern are emotions that you seem to ignore while asking then to recognize your emotions about illegal drug use hmmm.
You attribute the phrase "inherently harmful" to me but fail to site the source or context. Then, you modify or qualify with, "Or something of the sort." Then again, you want me to explain YOUR interpretation of MY words. I won't attempt the impossible but I will give the logic behind my negative conclusions regarding recreational drug use.
Friends that were recreational users:
Neighbors: Age 35, died of overdose
Age 30, died of overdose
Young married couple:
She was one of the most beautiful young women I ever met - died age 26, overdose.
He stole from his parents - tens of thousands in jewelry and some cash. They sold a luxurious home to pay for his legal defense for dealing in drugs. Both died at about age 56. He went to prison. At age 30 he looked more like 50.
Family friend:
Moved from recreational to addict. Cost family hundred of thousands of dollars in legal and rehab fees. Ruined family financially. Died age 28.
Brothers and close friends:
After some recreational use of marijuana, one brother, in mid-twenties, ate a can of cat food and thought it was the best tuna he ever tasted. Both quit and went on to become successful businessmen.
Business associate:
After developing a multi-million dollar business, took up recreational cocaine use. Just prior to his death he was using an ounce per day. Died age 45 leaving a son 11 and daughter 14.
Conclusions:
All users start out as recreational users.
Those still among the living quit early on.
None knew or admitted they had gone from recreational to addict.
Most died impacting children and family.
Some can use drugs and quit before it is too late.
Some children can play with matches and not get burned.
It is not a question of "inherently harmful" it is about making wise decisions.]
I do not under any circumstances condone the horrible things that drugs to do people.
[Your purchase of illegal drugs supports a black market that ruins lives and, in total, negatively impacts our society. You may not condone it; you just support it.]
I sympathize with innocents who have been harmed in the horror of the crack epidemic; I feel genuinely sorry for parents whose children steal from them to buy drugs, and I condemn any of the other widely-publicized extremes in which drug use can result.
[Your feelings are in the right place, but feelings count for little in a logical debate. It is the wisdom of your drug use that is in question.]
But alcohol can also result in these things and worse, as it tends to lead to domestic violence. Does that mean moderate alcohol use should be prohibited? Of course not.
[The abuse of alcohol is a serious matter that should bring more severe consequences. The fact that we have one demon in our society does not mean Frankenstein must invite Dracula. You can make an equation between moderate alcohol and moderate pot use, but cocaine, heroin, and drugs of that ilk are in another league.]
I have been a recreational drug user for five years of my life. During those five years, I have graduated with honors after a four-year college career, embarked on a successful marriage, successfully relocated across the continent, and found a secure and stable job. If anything, occasional drug use has helped me to relax or get perspective during some of those major changes.
[What is lacking here is a definition of "occasional use." I have a drop-dead -drunk friend who swears that I just don't know how to party. To the best of my knowledge no scientific test has shown illicit drugs to improve cognitive abilities. Perspectives are subjective.]
In no way have I been harmed by them, and my friends tend to be people with similar experiences.
[The testimony of groups of people that perform any illegal act usually rationalize the illegal activity. The fact that you surround yourself with drug users weighs negativity in my judgement.]
Historically, many cultures have ritualistically used many types of drugs for therapeutic and religious purposes, without harm to the individuals involved or to the fabric of the society.
[Historically, many cultures have ritualistically held slaves, killed witches and heretics that said the earth was not flat - they used drugs too. Please send me the list of today's great societies woven with a fabric of pervasive drug use.]
As to the physical dangers of drug use, there is a wealth of data supporting either side of that debate; also, the lengthy list of possible side effects that accompanies TV drug commercials should prove that even a generally helpful substance can have some unpleasant effects as well.
[There are some data supporting the recreational use of marijuana. Libertarians promote the view that most or all drug use is personal. Needle exchange programs exist. That said, the vast majority of science, opinion, law, and foreign experimentation fail to make a case for legalization of hard-core drugs.
True, drugs have side effects. A very small percentage of people will die from smallpox vaccine, but countless millions of lives have been saved. Illegal hard core drug usage brings addiction, devastation and death to millions -- and recreational highs to a few. There are positives and negatives to be found in virtually all propositions. Clinging to one positive in a field of negatives does not prove equivalency.
There are three possibilities when flipping a coin; heads, tails, and edge. As a child, I flipped a nickel on a tabletop and it came to rest on its edge. Still, I call heads or tails in all coin flips.
The fact that some individuals escape the heads and tails of drug use, does not bring logic to life on the edge.]
I do not necessarily expect that this letter will be printed on your site as it deals with a controversial topic and is somewhat lengthy. But if you have time for a personal response, I would appreciate one. You seem like a person of reason, yet I see no logic in your universal condemnation of the drugs that are currently illegal in today's society.
[I take pleasure in this somewhat lengthy response. Controversial discourse can be mind opening. Your narrow observation sees no logic my position; my broader insight allows a little logic in yours. My condemnation of illegal drugs is not universal, rather, respectful of heads and tails versus edge.
I am always interested in seeing the "other side" of issues, however, and because of my faith in your intelligence am curious as to your reasons for holding the views that you express about drug use. Almost anything can be dangerous in the wrong hands, Uncle, but that doesn't make drugs "inherently harmful".
[Almost anything can be harmless in the right hands, nephew, but that doesnt make illegal drug use inherently innocuous.
Jimism: Be wary the absolute
To keep an open mind and score debating points allow some logic in the opponents position. I can no more prove that drugs are inherently harmful than you can prove they are inherently innocuous.
For the purpose of this discussion I will regard the words, inherently harmful as an absolute.
Dont require your opponent to prove an absolute. You will lose a lot of cases because you are requiring the impossible.
Nor should you create an absolute for yourself. When you accuse your opponent of no logic(an absolute), all he has to do is provide one piece of logic and your position is weakened (reasonable doubt).
The issue here is not about inherently harmful. It is about the decision making process. Reckless driving is not always fatal. Sky diving, Scuba diving, Stunt Man, Tightrope Walker, Lion Tamer, are assigned higher premiums by insurance companies. Degree of risk is a fact of life and underwriting.
You call yourself a recreational user, but you fail to define recreational use. What drugs are used? Is heroin on the same plane as pot? How often do you indulge? Twice a year? Once a month? Every week? To what degree? Hard core? Why are all of your friends of similar mind? Are you aware that most drug users dont know when recreation becomes addiction? Are you aware of the blinding ability of denial? Is it more than recreational after five years? How about ten?
Each of us has the right to make decisions for themselves. If I were your parent, I would respect your right to make your drug use decisions. I would also ask you to respect my right to disown and disinherit you if your recreational drug use surfaces as a problem.]
With all due respect,
Everybodys Uncle
January 16, 2003 - Reply from Not an Addict in response to this post.
Everybody's Uncle,
I am the author of the "Not an Addict" letter that you just responded to on your website; you indicated that you were interested in my reaction, so here it is.
[Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your response and am pleased to post your thoughts and observations.]
First, I thank you for pointing out some of the emotional basis of my argument. I am not a seasoned debater, nor have I any law training, so your advice will help me more solidly ground my position in facts, should I choose to debate this topic in the future.
[My goal is not to tell my nieces and nephews "what to think," rather "how to think." My responses address the inquiries but are intended to provide something of value to all readers. Debating skills require insight into the opponent's position and tactics. This is central to winning debates and forces anticipation of the opposing view. Knowing the opponents "weapons" is priceless in counter-attack and revealing of weaknesses in one's own propositions.]
Next, you mentioned that I did not cite the source from which I took the quotation about your position. I got it from a letter in your "Home/School" section, where your response to a parent whose daughter wanted to dye her hair pink included three categories of "cultural shift". One of these was "intrinsically harmful, ex. drugs". This is what I based my position on.
[Thank you for chapter and verse. While I am philosophically aware of avoiding absolutes, endless employ of qualifiers makes for ponderous text. The context of my quote was incidental to the subject of pink hair. A child, with teen-wisdom, using drugs; violates the law, school parameters, and parental standards.{Note the omission of a qualifier. MOST parents, not all, advise against drugs. Also, "ex. drugs," does not exempt sanctioned cough medicine and aspirin, but the context implies illegal drugs.} In that context, "intrinsically harmful" does not, in my judgment, demand a qualifier.]
I am not advocating full legality of drugs like heroin or cocaine; I was simply trying to say that moderation in anything is not usually harmful and that drugs must be abused to be harmful rather than being harmful "intrinsically".
[Note your use of "full" and "anything." If I hold you to the same standard that you hold me, our discussion becomes more semantic than topical.]
As to great societies built on a fabric of drug use, I would suggest Native American society, but I am not enough of a historian to debate the greatness of their society so I offer that only as a tentative assertion that at least one such society has existed.
[I have neither the desire nor knowledge to debate what defines a great society. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder.]
I am saddened to hear that drugs have negatively affected so many people in your life; it certainly provides a compelling reason for such views as yours. However, I feel that an equal tragedy is a man with HIV who uses medical marijuana to combat the nausea induced by his medications; he is arrested for such drug use and chokes on his own vomit in jail because he was denied a medicine that truly helped him (this is a story personally known to me).
[I have no ethical problem with medically sound uses of substances that help people in dire circumstances. The medical and legal community should not be at odds when patient welfare is the highest priority. Two years ago I lost a close relative to cancer. There is NOTHING {almost} I would have withheld that would have relieved her final suffering. We do have some common ground.]
I guess my point is that a sane drug policy would somehow prevent tragedies of that nature while also preventing tragedies such as have befallen your friends and business associates.
[Here we part company. In every case, the individuals made what they considered sane choices. The law was not a factor in their decisions, just as it is not a factor in yours. Who decides "sane," -- me, you, The Taliban?]
Regarding my own use, when I say "recreational" I mean a low dose of psychedelics three or four times a year, plus one night per year that I splurge and use cocaine. This has been a pattern in my life for the five years I have been a user, and I have no desire to vary that.
[I disagree with your judgment.]
I thank you also for pointing out the fallacy of my use of absolutes.
[My service to an inquiring 23 year old.]
I think the error there was my choice of words, as I am not a libertarian and do not advocate the immediate legalization of all drugs. I did not intend to set up an absolute on either side of the debate; rather, my whole point was a moderate drug policy that was neither draconian nor so open as to invite further harm to society from problems like crack.
["Immediate legalization." Does that imply eventual legalization?
"A moderate drug policy." Moderate is relative to perspective. Who decides, the old and experienced or the child with pink hair?
"Problems like crack." There are, no doubt, those who would make a case for occasional recreational use.]
Our debate was educational to me and I thank you again for pointing out some of the flaws of my position as I stated it to you. Keep up your good work, as the world needs more sane voices out there.
[I'll do my best - promise.]
Incidentally, you erroneously assumed I was male. This has no bearing on my argument, but if it isn't too much trouble could you sometime let me know which aspects of my story led you to that conclusion? I am just curious; if I have taken up enough of your time I understand.
Respectfully,
Brooke
[I look for two messages in communication. The words put forth and what the style and presentation reveal about the author. In your writing I saw education, ego, some sarcasm, warmth in a hard shell, youthful exuberance, honesty, an open mind, blinding subjectivity, pride, goal seeking, an intellect that can be reached, and unlimited potential. These qualities must have rung more male than female. I never actually considered gender.
I am delighted that you took the time to respond. Feel free to take up as much of my time as serves your purposes - NIECE!]
All the best,
Everybody's Uncle
