I never took drugs. But I had the feeling in the clinic (for psychosis) where I was there ws a dichotomy. The innocent people who did not take drugs and got ill. And the one's who took drugs and can be blamed for their own misery. I am not sure whether all of the staff thought like that but I had the feeling many of them told that to themselves to sleep better at night when they see people getting tortured by their brain.
Personally I never even drunk alcohol. But I have to say I love coffee. I was pretty proud that I never abused drugs and still I am to some extent. For me taking drugs is like playing Russian roulette. When we talked about drugs at school I always told me what if I belong to the 1-5 % of people who don't have the nervous system to stomach it. Well I don't have the nervous system as I found out but the child abuse triggered it despite my abstinence.
The one therapist I think about is really very extreme with that dichotomy. He stressed it way too much. To a certain extent I think it might be true that people who take drugs are responsible for it. However there ae many cases where they are pretty innocent in my point of view.
I think the philosopher Michael Sandel describes it very well and I have sympathy for his approach.
His book The Tyranny of Merit sounded interesting for me.
"These are dangerous times for democracy. We live in an age of winners and losers, where the odds are stacked in favor of the already fortunate. Stalled social mobility and entrenched inequality give the lie to the American credo that "you can make it if you try". The consequence is a brew of anger and frustration that has fueled populist protest and extreme polarization, and led to deep distrust of both government and our fellow citizens--leaving us morally unprepared to face the profound challenges of our time.
World-renowned philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues that to overcome the crises that are upending our world, we must rethink the attitudes toward success and failure that have accompanied globalization and rising inequality. Sandel shows the hubris a meritocracy generates among the winners and the harsh judgement it imposes on those left behind, and traces the dire consequences across a wide swath of American life. He offers an alternative way of thinking about success--more attentive to the role of luck in human affairs, more conducive to an ethic of humility and solidarity, and more affirming of the dignity of work. The Tyranny of Merit points us toward a hopeful vision of a new politics of the common good"
It does not fit perfectly but here is what I mean. Many things in life are arbitrary or at least heavily influenced by our environment, education and genes. There are many factors we cannot control. For me this notion is comforting because it frees me from some pressure. I don't believe in a meritocracy. So many humans on earth live in a living hell full of crime, violence and abuse. They are not responsibe for it.
Now back to the drugs I think the relation is often influenced by family members or peers. My parents always were very anti-drugs. So I adapted that position. One of the few good things that they taught me. I think if they smoked weed in front of me I would have had probably a different relation. I don't mean it is a free pass but just asking have you taken drugs and if the answer is yes judging that person as responsible for their misery is absurd. There are also studies that prove there is a correlation between child abuse and substance abuse I think.
Personally I just feel uncomfortable when people have such a notion of reality. It probably helps them to sleep at night but that approach seems for me to be dishonest. I mean some people feel so tortured by their abuse or traumatas that they find themselves in front of the decision between drugs or suicide. If I told that to these professionals they might would call my naive. I had no idea which people are their patients in the psychiatry. I have to admit many of these patients seem to have abused drugs just for fun. And this is kind of irresponsible. However I can say for sure these people don't dig deep when they deal with patients. And I am pretty sure they will not dig deep especially when the new findings could destroy their world view or ruin their good sleep at night. When I had the first anamnesis talk the therapist just asked the casual question: Was there anything special in your life so far besides the points you mentioned? Well he waited like some seconds and went on with the conversation. I was way too ashamed to open up about the child abuse and suicidality. There was no concrete question about that otherwise I would have told the truth. I was even participant at a study where they asked that question and I replied sincerely. But the therapists did not communicate with each other seemingly.
(I want to add something. I am quite sure there are studies about suicide forums. I would be curious if they would take all my criticsim of the professionals to actually increase the quality of therapy. But I think these studies probably have a different purpose. But if a scientist has to real all my long ass threads I want to apologize sincerely from the deepest of my heart. Lol.)
I am still pretty much anti-drugs and consider them as very dangerous. But the reasons why someone is addicted can have many reasons. I mean I currently take addictive medication and I am scared as fuck to become addicted also because of the stigmatization. But what if this is the only thing that prevents a relapse? It is a dangerous game for sure. Moreover one could talk about the opiod crises and how millions of Americans got screwed by big pharma. So to blame the victims would be deeply cynical.
What is your take on it?
Personally I never even drunk alcohol. But I have to say I love coffee. I was pretty proud that I never abused drugs and still I am to some extent. For me taking drugs is like playing Russian roulette. When we talked about drugs at school I always told me what if I belong to the 1-5 % of people who don't have the nervous system to stomach it. Well I don't have the nervous system as I found out but the child abuse triggered it despite my abstinence.
The one therapist I think about is really very extreme with that dichotomy. He stressed it way too much. To a certain extent I think it might be true that people who take drugs are responsible for it. However there ae many cases where they are pretty innocent in my point of view.
I think the philosopher Michael Sandel describes it very well and I have sympathy for his approach.
His book The Tyranny of Merit sounded interesting for me.
"These are dangerous times for democracy. We live in an age of winners and losers, where the odds are stacked in favor of the already fortunate. Stalled social mobility and entrenched inequality give the lie to the American credo that "you can make it if you try". The consequence is a brew of anger and frustration that has fueled populist protest and extreme polarization, and led to deep distrust of both government and our fellow citizens--leaving us morally unprepared to face the profound challenges of our time.
World-renowned philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues that to overcome the crises that are upending our world, we must rethink the attitudes toward success and failure that have accompanied globalization and rising inequality. Sandel shows the hubris a meritocracy generates among the winners and the harsh judgement it imposes on those left behind, and traces the dire consequences across a wide swath of American life. He offers an alternative way of thinking about success--more attentive to the role of luck in human affairs, more conducive to an ethic of humility and solidarity, and more affirming of the dignity of work. The Tyranny of Merit points us toward a hopeful vision of a new politics of the common good"
It does not fit perfectly but here is what I mean. Many things in life are arbitrary or at least heavily influenced by our environment, education and genes. There are many factors we cannot control. For me this notion is comforting because it frees me from some pressure. I don't believe in a meritocracy. So many humans on earth live in a living hell full of crime, violence and abuse. They are not responsibe for it.
Now back to the drugs I think the relation is often influenced by family members or peers. My parents always were very anti-drugs. So I adapted that position. One of the few good things that they taught me. I think if they smoked weed in front of me I would have had probably a different relation. I don't mean it is a free pass but just asking have you taken drugs and if the answer is yes judging that person as responsible for their misery is absurd. There are also studies that prove there is a correlation between child abuse and substance abuse I think.
Personally I just feel uncomfortable when people have such a notion of reality. It probably helps them to sleep at night but that approach seems for me to be dishonest. I mean some people feel so tortured by their abuse or traumatas that they find themselves in front of the decision between drugs or suicide. If I told that to these professionals they might would call my naive. I had no idea which people are their patients in the psychiatry. I have to admit many of these patients seem to have abused drugs just for fun. And this is kind of irresponsible. However I can say for sure these people don't dig deep when they deal with patients. And I am pretty sure they will not dig deep especially when the new findings could destroy their world view or ruin their good sleep at night. When I had the first anamnesis talk the therapist just asked the casual question: Was there anything special in your life so far besides the points you mentioned? Well he waited like some seconds and went on with the conversation. I was way too ashamed to open up about the child abuse and suicidality. There was no concrete question about that otherwise I would have told the truth. I was even participant at a study where they asked that question and I replied sincerely. But the therapists did not communicate with each other seemingly.
(I want to add something. I am quite sure there are studies about suicide forums. I would be curious if they would take all my criticsim of the professionals to actually increase the quality of therapy. But I think these studies probably have a different purpose. But if a scientist has to real all my long ass threads I want to apologize sincerely from the deepest of my heart. Lol.)
I am still pretty much anti-drugs and consider them as very dangerous. But the reasons why someone is addicted can have many reasons. I mean I currently take addictive medication and I am scared as fuck to become addicted also because of the stigmatization. But what if this is the only thing that prevents a relapse? It is a dangerous game for sure. Moreover one could talk about the opiod crises and how millions of Americans got screwed by big pharma. So to blame the victims would be deeply cynical.
What is your take on it?
Last edited:
