One of my favorite TV shows, 60 Minutes, returned to the world of smokers recently.
While it indicated that millions have stopped smoking, it showed that millions still do
smoke. I do not understand the pleasure of smoking [I smoked as an experimenting
teenager decades ago]. To smoke, one must put a lighted thing into one's mouth. To use drugs, one must put something into one's body, via pills, needles or other.
I am an educator. Here is what I do not understand:
In a jail, one must follow the warden's or officer's directions. In court, the judge's.
In the military, everyone above your rank. In a Communist or socialist nation, the
religious and government leaders are absolute in their power.
Saying all this, one's smoking is a voluntary action. One's drug use is a voluntary action.
Let me offer perhaps a comical example-
for those of us who are Trekkies:
on one episode, where people seemed to be killing at random, the captain was
asked why he was not also killing. He, volunteered that, it was true that humans were a very
unique species and we can choose not to kill.
Using that approach, while many consumable items “seem” to be addictive, and
many actions, addictive [sex?], it is illogical to consider consuming or other
actions to be addictive when those things are voluntary.
Yes, this discussion has been held for decades.
Here is a similar perspective to add potency: if you were told “YOU must have
a cigarette, or you must have this drug, NOW!” You are likely to say “f_ you! NO one
is going to tell me what to do! Conversely, if someone were you tell you “you may
not have this or that [drug or smoke]”, you would again state forcefully, “no one is going
to tell me what to do!” [This excludes of course, the legal bodies mentioned above;
prison and court personnel!]
Thus, we are full-circle. One cannot claim addition when the action is voluntary; it makes
no sense.
I do agree that logic fails to play its part in much of this. Parents have lost their
children to court orders when the parent chooses to use drugs instead of their
children.
I had a very individualist neighbor; bearded, about 45 yrs of age, a smoker with
a smoking wife and in-laws that smoked.
He knew the consequence of smoking. One day about 3 years ago, he had a heart attack
and went to the hospital. He was returned to a modicum of life. His wife refused to
alter her actions and her relatives [I had met them all] had refused to alter their
habits either.
Three months later, he had another attack. When he got out 1 month later, he was
very weak. He was now using a cane. He had finally stopped smoking but his
wife and in-laws refused to do so. He told me he would rather that his relatives
continue to do what they liked and he would take his chances. He died of second hand
smoke 3 months later. [It would have been “of smoking” but in this case, his house
was a smoke den.]
Yet, across America, government bodies help fund non-smoking clinics and anti-drug
clinics. I can't figure out why! The use of CONSUMABLES is a voluntary act!
I was told that my attitude is sad and uncompassionate.
Using that logic, I could become, tomorrow, a thief, rapist, involuntary murderer, embezzler; all
voluntary action.
I could state to clinic operators, “I must kill you and steal from you... please don't get mad
at me, I am addicted.”
These are voluntary actions and we choose to commit them.
HOW is NOT being forced to stick a needle in our bodies or not being forced to
consume drugs making us addicted?
